Driver license and registration please?

[Livefire]

YOWSA!!!!

Its the provisions of the Federal Highway Safety Act that control the actions of the Department of Motor Vehicles, not the state legislature. Kinda sort of the same reason that the Michigan Secretary of State lost in court with feds a few yrs back when she challenged the mandatory collection of SSN's for all license applicants. No SSN's....no federal highway funds!

[squirrel]

Who in the heck is "driving a motor vehicle" !
So shoonra, whats it feel like to be a traitor to your own People ?
I'm willing to bet you teach your children the blasphemy that spews from your fingers here.
So how is that working out for you ? you know, lying, deceptive trade practices, stealing the Peoples substinence, treasonous behavior, being a triator to the American Republic, taking vows not to expose the Bankrupcy and to be a stooly for the crown.
I know allready, no comment right.
Do whatever it takes to get rich without actually working.

[aksis]

"Anybody know why the states started changing their procedures regarding traffic offenses right around 1966 to 1968? Ohio adopted Traffic Rules in 1968 or thereabouts. New York about the same time. West Virginia about the same time.

Aksis what about Arizona?"

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.
...

I am still not clear on the authority of issuance. From top to bottom, I had "We the People" at the top as the authority btw, is this incorrect? Then all the way down to the human who will actualy hands the licence [proof thereof?] to you - just to illustrate the flow of authority/power.

I belive I may be off in the, "who's licence is it?", answer... it would be "We the People's" as well - granted to individuals for use of Our roads as places of business. Not the DMV/MVD's as I presented.

As the authority/power flows down, it is affected by a "contract" with the Fed.

The contract with the Fed is to "secure funding". (so we give the Fed energy [money] and then contract to get it back... (walking arround the block to get next door.)

And these are the hoops to get our energy [money] back: TITLE 23 > CHAPTER 4

Correct?

Livefire, it appears that the State still retains the ability to create statutes, but to get the funding they have to conform them to the Feds regulations. Why give them the energy [money] in the first place & cut out the middle people?
Rather then let the fed dictate, would it be wise to hear suggestions?

squirrel, good questions, but its off topic - that belongs in the forum "cases aginst members who are alleged pawns for the government". ;-)

"... thank you for getting me back on track. I had to go off on that tangent. "

Sans, I understand, and was simply setting the stage for you to display that you are as willing to stand rebuked as you would hope others to be. Like you really need me to keep you on track... :-)

"Can one actually damage a thought, concept, or idea?" No. You *might* be able to get someone to accept a distorted version of a "thought, concept, or idea", especialy if someone has some confusion on the subject matter already. [would this be a mis-information attack?]

[SansRecours]

I am back at my base of operations. I have to lay my foundation, slightly reiterating some of my previous posts. Jump in and hang on.

Before I start, (Insert standard disclaimer about this not being legal advice, then excuse yourself, pray, or throw up, and read my post).

I need to get into status, standing, agency, the nature and the character of the parties in a traffic "case" in this attempt at explaining the character of the driver license and the traffic ticket. I also need to get into the concept of res judicata.

A little at a time. First, who (I really mean what) is the officer, and who (ditto) is SansRecours?

The following issues of fact apply whether one has a license or not. However, because of the evidentiary character of the license, the lower inferior court is merely a venue to notify to prevent nisi prius presumption of correctness of lower inferior court proceeding. The best way I know to prevent regularity of proceeding presumption is in declaring no duty to appear, and a demand to produce the source of any allegation of duty to appear. (See www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/2ndCirc-Ruling-Jan-05.pdf).

I guarantee that a police officer on the side of the road will have NO IDEA of what I hereafter write. I am sorry, and no offense intended, but he is one of those Marxist useful idiots. Secondly, the police officer functions as an agent (swarms of agents to eat out our substance?). As such, he is responsive and duty bound to his principal (his employer), and NOT ME directly. His actions are tied to the god of Insurance, an underlying factor. If the reader is one who likes to argue points of law with the police officer, it is tantamount to talking to Mickey Mouse about the problems at Walt Disney.

My duty and obligation at the roadside, being the son of the Sovereign (Ephesians, Chapter 1 & 2), is to warn him, appealing to his conscience (if he has one) and his roadside discretion. I must warn that, if he decides to write a ticket, that he WILL bear false witness against me and personally swear falsely, in disobedience to Law (God's Commandments), and that he WILL be setting up a thief to abet stealing by this false swearing, as true, to nothing more than hearsay.

My authority for the above warning is according to Law (Matt. 18), and as follows:

This 97-280 part might seem a little nebulous to some who do not believe in the power of God’s Word, but I believe my duty to keep the commandments is paramount, as it is the source of all right, and Congress (the people free and sovereign??) recognizes this duty, obligation, and corresponding right to study and apply the Scriptures.

97th Congress Joint Resolution [S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211 Public Law 97-280 - 10/ 4/ 82
Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible."
Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";
Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

My authority for investigation the nature and the character of the parties, their function, their papers, their authority, and my duty to respond in any interfacing with that which purports to be government is as follows:

Federal Crop Insurance Co. V. Merrill 332 U.S. 380 (1947)

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."



This case is about a farmer (Merrill) who made application for Federal Crop Insurance, through the agency established by the government for the purpose of the government selling this insurance, and on the advice of one of its agents. The farmer did ask of the agent if the government’s insurance policy covered a certain crop. The agent said that the crop was covered. The farmer planted it. It failed. The farmer tried to collect on the policy, which the (government) insurance denied the claim with the reason that the crop was not in fact covered by the policy. The farmer sued, and lost.

What does this have to do with the nature and character of traffic tickets and driver licenses?

The state and/or local police are AGENCIES. There is a federal nexus all the way back to at least 1966, and a subsequent change in procedure in relation to the treatment of traffic offenses. The agent hands me a ticket, and the character of the parties, all the way to the supreme court (see the Hiibel case) is a PRESUMPTION. The ticket purports to make an agency record, to summons, and to complain, (the original agency record, the yellow and pink copies), yet none but the agency record carry the necessary indicia to do that which it purports. Does Officer Law have authority to issue a REAL summons, or a REAL complaint (in opposition to an administrative one)?

The action commences on HIS SIGNATURE ALONE, and he has NO AUTHORITY to commence an action in the name of any principal legal fiction agency because he is not an attorney, and just does not have the authority to summons, complain and commence an action and bind any people, or any thing but himself, by his signature on a traffic ticket. Is the officer aware of this? If he knew that his signature had no authority, he would be powerless to enforce. He must be a victim of purposeful misinformation (hence a useful idiot) to embrace qualified immunity (to a point).

Because the DUTY and the OBLIGATION is upon me, according to the supreme court, to investigate the assertion of authority (State of [insert name] v. SansRecours), and this duty is specifically proscribed by the supreme court (foregoing) then it logically follows that I must have the RIGHT to ask the question. But I cannot enforce my right and waive it at the same time.
I have to enforce it pre-plea and pre-appearance as a matter of necessity.
There is another supreme court case, (temporarily lost in my library somewhere) making the statement to the effect that "good faith assertions of power and authority have been abolished." I believe it is a 42 USC 1983 case (not that I advocate that abomination).

Now I am going to ask one BIG Question of Fact to determine if the reader really knows the nature and the cause of the traffic ticket "accusation":

In what capacity is the state functioning?


So far is this simple, provable, and, as evidence, admissable?
How is it admissable pre-plea and pre-appearance?

Enough for now.

Sans Recours

[idknow]

My comments interspersed.

Originally Posted by SansRecours

[cut]

Before I start, (Insert standard disclaimer about this not being legal advice, then excuse yourself, pray, or throw up, and read my post).

praying, done.

[quote=SansRecours]
I need to get into status, standing, agency, the nature and the character of the parties in a traffic "case" in this attempt at explaining the character of the driver license and the traffic ticket. I also need to get into the concept of res judicata.
[/qote]

Psalms 1.1 states our sit, stand and walk is in the word, counsel and light of Abba.

Originally Posted by SansRecours

[...] First, who (I really mean what) is the officer, and who (ditto) is SansRecours?

You, SansRecours, ARE a spirit with a soul living in a body. (q.v. Genesis 1)

The agent-officer is a shadow of himself, an agent-in-fiction representing a dead thing, another fiction created
and existing on paper only. It has no spirit, no soul and no body. It is imaginary.

aside-Levity: the shadow of a dog never bit anyone! bahaha

Originally Posted by SansRecors

[cut]

Secondly, the police officer functions as an agent (swarms of agents to eat out our substance?). As such, he is responsive and duty bound to his principal (his employer), and NOT ME directly. His actions are tied to the god of Insurance, an underlying factor. If the reader is one who likes to argue points of law with the police officer, it is tantamount to talking to Mickey Mouse about the problems at Walt Disney.

((the Jefferson quote is excellent))

What if, as in my case heretofore, the agent confesses to be that he
is also a degreed lawyer?!?
How does that confession affect your statement above as to ``not being duly authorised to bind'' his principal?

Originally Posted by SansRecours

My duty and obligation at the roadside, being the son of the Sovereign (Ephesians, Chapter 1 & 2), is to warn him, appealing to his conscience (if he has one) and his roadside discretion. I must warn [him] that[ ] if he decides to write a ticket, that he WILL bear false witness against me and personally swear falsely, in disobedience to Law (God's Commandments), and that he WILL be setting up a thief to abet stealing by this false swearing, as true, to nothing more than hearsay.

Since he has no authority when he decides to stop one of us, he has already committed the sin!

Originally Posted by SansRecours

My authority for the above warning is according to Law (Matt. 18), and as follows:

This 97-280 part might seem a little nebulous to some who do not believe in the power of God's Word, but I believe my duty to keep the commandments is paramount, as it is the source of all right, and Congress (the people free and sovereign??) recognizes this duty, obligation, and corresponding right to study and apply the Scriptures.

97th Congress Joint Resolution [S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211 Public Law 97-280 - 10/ 4/ 82
Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible."
[cut]

But the above resolution of Congress is NOT a law,
it sets up no right, privilege nor authority of law to do anything under color of law.

Originally Posted by SansRecours

My authority for investigation the nature and the character of the parties, their function, their papers, their authority, and my duty to respond in any interfacing with that which purports to be government is as follows:

Federal Crop Insurance Co. V. Merrill 332 U.S. 380 (1947)

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."

In the above case quote, i see that "the risk of having accurately ascertained" means that we are to make informed
decisions and choices based on a negotation prior to accepting the offer made, whether that offer is overt or covert.

Perhaps we need to clearly, often and early, make the declaration (as said here recently) that ``I do not commit
commerce on the road'' then followed by the explicit declaration that ``to do so gives you [speaking to the agent]
the jurisdiction, and i'm not going to do that. Further I say nought!''

[cut]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

The state and/or local police are [Agents and] AGENCIES. There is a federal nexus all the way back to at least 1966, and a subsequent change in procedure in relation to the treatment of traffic offenses. The agent hands me a ticket, and the character of the parties, all the way to the supreme court (see the Hiibel case) is a PRESUMPTION. The ticket purports to make an agency record, to summons, and to complain, (the original agency record, the yellow and pink copies), yet none but the agency record carry the necessary indicia to do that which it purports. Does Officer Law have authority to issue a REAL summons, or a REAL complaint (in opposition to an administrative one)?

Since the citiation is the "process" under Color of Adminstrative (executive dept) Law, which is defined by an
Authorising and Enabling Act of Legislature, then there cannot be authority of judicial power which imposes
a criminal or equitable consequence for non-compliance.

Example: The state Public Utilities Commission (puc) is created, defined and authorised to watch over
corporations that provide certain services and products for public consumption, such as telephone, taxis, local buses service,
electric, gas, water, waste, long haul chattle moving (inter- and intrastate), interstate buses

(municipal corps are also liable to this law when their services extend beyond their corporate borders,
ie, water service to other towns)

Now when i call the puc to complain about the gas company's service or lack thereof,
they initiate what they call, an informal complaint. Hoever, I can attempt to resolve the
problem in good faith with the company first, then aver to the puc that I have done so
and move past the informal process to formal complaint and from there perhaps demand
a formal hearing. It's not at all judicial; but to me, having once complained about the telco,
it seemed more equitable (what's fair to both parties, Equity) (btw, i lost in that hearing)

So, where the P.O-Agent hands a citation to us "demanding that we appear before a magistrate"
how is it that the demand in administrative law is made when the law authorising is not judicial
in nature? As Sans write somewhere in this post, the P.O. is an Executive dept/Administrative Agent
only, and not clothed in or with judicial authority at all. So, that's another lie attempting to coerce
us to acceed to his and their jurisdiction.

Continuing with the paragraph above, the nature of the citation/summons/complaint is defined by
administrative authority given by an act of legislature; its nature nor that of the P.O/Man-from-Administrivia
cannot change the the nature of what is done or presented to us.

It's defined within the authority of the "Executive" branch of government give by the legislature
and that settles it.

i hope this part helps.

Originally Posted by SansRecours

The action commences on HIS SIGNATURE ALONE, and he has NO AUTHORITY to commence an action in the name of any principal legal fiction agency because he is not an attorney, and just does not have the authority to summons, complain and commence an action and bind any people, or any thing but himself, by his signature on a traffic ticket. Is the officer aware of this? If he knew that his signature had no authority, he would be powerless to enforce. He must be a victim of purposeful misinformation (hence a useful idiot) to embrace qualified immunity (to a point).

Because the DUTY and the OBLIGATION is upon me, according to the supreme court, to investigate the assertion of authority (State of [insert name] v. SansRecours), and this duty is specifically proscribed by the supreme court (foregoing) then it logically follows that I must have the RIGHT to ask the question. But I cannot enforce my right and waive it at the same time.

I have to enforce it pre-plea and pre-appearance as a matter of necessity.
There is another supreme court case, (temporarily lost in my library somewhere) making the statement to the effect that "good faith assertions of power and authority have been abolished." I believe it is a 42 USC 1983 case (not that I advocate that abomination).

the cite for "good faith assertions" is mentioned in the Right to drive brief.

Originally Posted by SansRecours

Now I am going to ask one BIG Question of Fact to determine if the reader really knows the nature and the cause of the traffic ticket "accusation":

In what capacity is the state functioning?


So far is this simple, provable, and, as evidence, admissable?
How is it admissable pre-plea and pre-appearance?

Enough for now.

Sans Recours

Fascinating and excellent Sans,

I await your response to my comments.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by idknow

What if, as in my case heretofore, the agent confesses to be that he
is also a degreed lawyer?!?
How does that confession affect your statement above as to ``not being duly authorised to bind'' his principal?

A copper with a JD sheepskin.....hmmm.....probably was an idiot that couldnt pass the bar exam! BTW, I think that they have to members of the bar to be considered officers of the court. He can only act in the capacity he is authorized to act in.....irregardless of his Curriculim Vitae.

Sans Recours,

The copper and the judges are all acting in a ministerial capacity. Most municipalities here in Michigan have adopted the Model Uniform Traffic Code as their ordinance and it clearly states that the agency repsonsible for its promulgation is the Michigan state police. The traffic court judge/magistrate acts as a hearing officer for the agency. Judicial review is upon APPEAL after final agency determination.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Livefire

[cut]
He can only act in the capacity he is authorized to act in.....irregardless of his Curriculim Vitae.

Sans Recours,

The copper and the judges are all acting in a ministerial capacity. Most municipalities here in Michigan have adopted the Model Uniform Traffic Code as their ordinance and it clearly states that the agency repsonsible for its promulgation is the Michigan state police. The traffic court judge/magistrate acts as a hearing officer for the agency. Judicial review is upon APPEAL after final agency determination.

that's it? Where's the rest? I wrote volumes, i pulled hair out!
I muttered to myself!

I WANT more response!

lol.

[SansRecours]

Livefire is right about the attorney copper, (excepting that "irregardless" is not a word).
There is a federal nexus in the Michigan State Police. You will find it. Secondly, has there ever been a case captioned Michigan State Police v. Livefire, or does it change to State of Michigan (whatever that is) v. Livefire?

Now onto idknow
1 "Since he has no authority when he decides to stop one of us, he has already committed the sin!"

Who or what is the ‘one of us’? My point here is that there is no case differentiating between the two, in modern times, and the right to travel cases (which I have all of the forum cites and then some) do not reach this issue of fact. There is no case where the question; Are there two classes of people going down the roadway, one of which is non-commercial and private, retaining all rights at all times, and another class having limited pre-determined right, wherein an administrative venue is proper because the character of the party is such that the relative right does not reach constitutional due process protection?
There is a mouthful.

2 "But the above resolution of Congress is NOT a law, it sets up no right, privilege nor authority of law to do anything under color of law."

Public Law 97-280 96STAT 1211 is positive law for the purpose of the declaration of the Year of the Bible. But that is not as important as what Congress says in the Declaration (in other words, at least in this country it demonstrates that we have a national need to "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake"). This public law survived an injunction attempt and a constitutionality challenge, and survived both because of its factual historical significance. Probably the only time Congress spoke truth. The bottom line- Congress says study and apply. There’s a law I can obey.
It is also admissible as evidence.

3. "In the above case quote, i see that "the risk of having accurately ascertained" means that we are to make informed
decisions and choices based on a negotation prior to accepting the offer made, whether that offer is overt or covert.

Perhaps we need to clearly, often and early, make the declaration (as said here recently) that ``I do not commit
commerce on the road'' then followed by the explicit declaration that ``to do so gives you [speaking to the agent]
the jurisdiction, and i'm not going to do that. Further I say nought!''

While I think the UCC (negotiation, offer, acceptance) might be underlying, again, there is no cases, statutes, or the like tying one to the other, so without proof, you are making conclusions without facts to support. I do suggest that everyone study the Law on Signatures and Indorsements, and follow this law into the rules concerning the signing of, and the nature of, pleadings. A traffic ticket has none of the indicia of a pleading, is full of hearsay, and fails as a commencement document. This is why I have and exercise no duty to make a general appearance.

5 "As Sans write somewhere in this post, the P.O. is an Executive dept/Administrative Agent"

I do not recall saying that he was an executive dept/adminstrative agent. I believe that he must purely administrative. Why? If there is a government executive branch connection. I believe that the connection is the governor appointment of a Traffic Commission or Traffic Bureau where the police agency resides. This is where it becomes purely administrative. Further, with the governor, at least in Arizona, as a contracting agent, he loses his executive branch authority, reduce his status to that of a commercial contractor. This will be subject of my next post, after I get answers to my big question of fact, and other questions.

As for the rest of your statements. I agree. We can show by fact and evidence that there is more than one type of a "complaint". The question remains- am I the subject or the object of one or the other, and, if subject in the administrative realm, where is there a determination by Congress that I am merely an administrative being, subject to merely administrative procedure? That is also why I say "exhausting your administrative remedies" is a farce meant to envelop all, through the Bar Association, in the administrative, and denovo, review blanket. Ugh!

Sans

[mrg]

irregardless is a word, perhaps frowned upon, but irregardless it may be used with impunity (especially with impunity), and, although one may scorn it, one may not say that it is not a word.

sorry, the devil made me do it.

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition
Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus 1997
Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus 1996

[idknow]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

[cut]

(yours reformatted for parsing)

I meant to differentiate between us who travel in our birth-right;
and, they who are attempting to contract with us on the road
clearly in violation of law.

As for your final question in that mouthful I proffer the following as reminder:

then an action with such a question for the court NEEDS to filed.

Our character doesnt change, we are mindful of our desire to NOT commit commerce and refuse to contract
with anyone for we know that such an act on our part would immediately negate our birth-right
and thus we immediately become that which Our Constitution was written to protect, that is,

NO, that's a wrong answer (and I leave it in to show my thinking)

WE ARE NOT corporations, we are Sovereigns from our respective birth-lands.
WE become corporations by our right of contract when WE Decide to incorporate ONLY
and no act of legislature nor an act of agent can change OUR state/status. ONLY
we can change or alienate or exchange (we border on sin for we would alienate our
God-given right to be free for we are bought with a Price, ransomed to life and freedom.)

Without clear and obvious evidence that we are, upon him seeing us, at that instant actually
engaged in commerce and not just turning a corner or waiting at a stop light,
there is NO commerce being committeds.

There is no law, Rule, Regulation, Act of Legislature or opinions of court that can affect our status for
all of OUR acts are done in Private, in our Private Birth-Rights. Just because (dangerous ground here,
read carefully) a STATE agent stops us after he decides to ignore the obvious lack of evidence on our property
in which we travel (tags, stickers, etc) does NOT give him any jurisdiction over us, our right or our property.

Until I incorporate and exchange Lord's (relieg, note its similarity to religion) I am not subject to
any act of legislature or opinion of court which would attempt to tell me what to do: with the following
proviso:

1. I harm not other man or woman (regardless of face or FACE); and,
2. I damage no property.

At the point I violate one or both of those provisos, I have committed a
tort and If I am walking in the light, There is ONLY one thing to do.
Honor must be maintained.

Originally Posted by sansrecours

Public Law 97-280 96STAT 1211 is positive law for the purpose of the declaration of the Year of the Bible. But that is not as important as what Congress says in the Declaration (in other words, at least in this country it demonstrates that we have a national need to "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord*s sake"). This public law survived an injunction attempt and a constitutionality challenge, and survived both because of its factual historical significance. Probably the only time Congress spoke truth. The bottom line- Congress says study and apply. There*s a law I can obey.
It is also admissible as evidence.

ok. but i still have dubouts.

Originally Posted by idknow

3. "In the above case quote, i see that "the risk of having accurately ascertained" means that we are to make informed
decisions and choices based on a negotation prior to accepting the offer made, whether that offer is overt or covert.

Perhaps we need to clearly, often and early, make the declaration (as said here recently) that ``I do not commit
commerce on the road'' then followed by the explicit declaration that ``to do so gives you [speaking to the agent]
the jurisdiction, and i'm not going to do that. Further I say nought!''

While I think the UCC (negotiation, offer, acceptance) might be underlying, again, there is no cases, statutes, or the like tying one to the other, so without proof, you are making conclusions without facts to support. I do suggest that everyone study the Law on Signatures and Indorsements, and follow this law into the rules concerning the signing of, and the nature of, pleadings. A traffic ticket has none of the indicia of a pleading, is full of hearsay, and fails as a commencement document. This is why I have and exercise no duty to make a general appearance.
[/quote]

Well, then how about this: regardless of style of meeting, the agent *IS* trying to get
us to agree to accept his jurisdiction and authority and duty to write a citation which
clearly know that Sans fault on our part is without jurisdiction, authority and duty.

He cant bind us to the state without our explicit act or word.

Originally Posted by idknow

5 "As Sans write somewhere in this post, the P.O. is an Executive dept/Administrative Agent"

I do not recall saying that he was an executive dept/adminstrative agent. I believe that he must purely administrative. Why? If there is a government executive branch connection. I believe that the connection is the governor appointment of a Traffic Commission or Traffic Bureau where the police agency resides. This is where it becomes purely administrative. Further, with the governor, at least in Arizona, as a contracting agent, he loses his executive branch authority, reduce his status to that of a commercial contractor. This will be subject of my next post, after I get answers to my big question of fact, and other questions.
[/quote]

I was expanding and clarifying how you defined the agent-officer. sorry i was wasnt clearer.

Originally Posted by sansrecours

As for the rest of your statements. I agree. We can show by fact and evidence that there is more than one type of a "complaint". The question remains- am I the subject or the object of one or the other, and, if subject in the administrative realm, where is there a determination by Congress that I am merely an administrative being, subject to merely administrative procedure? That is also why I say "exhausting your administrative remedies" is a farce meant to envelop all, through the Bar Association, in the administrative, and denovo, review blanket. Ugh!

Sans

woohoo, a new q!

ok, going back to my recount of my administrative hearing process,

I had plenty of time prior to the setting of the hearing-date to study
back in 1995-1996 and I did prepare by finding the act of legislature
which clearly defined who the PUC had authority over; it wasnt me!

But my studies were incomplete for the time; the phone company wanted
my SSN, and I refused to tell them during my application for service.

as I said previously, the "administrative judge" ruled against me.

but my point is that as has been recently and often said here on the forum,
all motor vehicle code is administrative and the APA Rules are key.

and there is a link tween MV rules and dept of revenue

and the private police of the corporations are the "assessors" and "collectors"

how's that sound?

Great points, Sans!