Driver license and registration please?

[Shoonra]

I have already expressed myself on the matter of the traffic courts and the like, but I do want to comment on the 1983 resolution on the Year of the Bible. It was certainly an Act of Congress, and signed by the President (Reagan), and in that respect it qualifies as a law. But since it required nothing, punished nothing, and only made an announcement - and one of a very termporary effect - it doesn't fit the common usage of the word law.

It said, about 22 years ago, that 1983 was the Year of the Bible. It did not say which Bible. It did not require anyone to believe anything in particular about any part of any Bible, etc. It was just the adoption of a temporary slogan. I cannot imagine how it could have any significance in any legal argument.

[Livefire]

The You Drink & Drive. You Lose. crackdown began Dec. 19 and runs through Jan. 1. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) is coordinating the drunk driving crackdown by providing federal traffic safety funds to nearly 100 agencies to boost patrols while hundreds of other agencies have vowed to make stopping and arresting drunk drivers a priority during the holiday season.

This clearly shows the federal nexus between the OHSP and the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies.....Follow the money trail!

[SansRecours]

I can enter it as evidence to support a valid reason for acting the way I do.
I'm just doing what Congress says.

As far as no specific bible mentioned, history will show it the King James or variant thereof.
They surely were not talking about the Koran, the Kabbalah, a Book of Spells, or the Talmud, as none of those books carry the connotation "bible".

You are right, Shoonra, as legal precedent to accuse an officer of bearing false witness, it would have no legal consequence. But as evidence supporting MY religious conviction, or MY foundation for making the legal challenges of status, standing, and agency. It is admissible.

If I do not speak of my faith in Jesus and willingness at attempting to apply Scriptures to everyday living, then I do not feel that I would be posting honestly. As I am laying a foundation for MY actions, I did think it necessary to include that law as such a foundation, and recognition of congressional support for my so doing. That's all.

Sans

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have already expressed myself on the matter of the traffic courts and the like, but I do want to comment on the 1983 resolution on the Year of the Bible. It was certainly an Act of Congress, and signed by the President (Reagan), and in that respect it qualifies as a law. But since it required nothing, punished nothing, and only made an announcement - and one of a very termporary effect - it doesn't fit the common usage of the word law.

It said, about 22 years ago, that 1983 was the Year of the Bible. It did not say which Bible. It did not require anyone to believe anything in particular about any part of any Bible, etc. It was just the adoption of a temporary slogan. I cannot imagine how it could have any significance in any legal argument.

Good point, Shoonra. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, SansRecours? I apologise.

allow me to retry?

While I dont recall the news of event, I recall those days. It was twenty Years
after prayer had been removed from the public school.

And President Reagan was a faithful Man (warts and all) to the most high
and he encouraged the Congress to pass this resolution.

We are a christian nation.

And while a law in a loose sense of the word for both Houses of Congress DID
pass it, it is a statement of faith only. Nothing else.
I do not mean to denegrate the resolution at all, but merely to consider it
in its proper perspective.

It's also not temporary for it has no expiration.
I too dont see it having affect on legal argument, but that shouldnt prevent
anyone from trying.

[Shoonra]

Contrary to SansRecours's comment, the 1983 Year of the Bible announcement did not make an implied reference to the King James Bible. The announcement did not specify either the Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish Bibles, nor any particular translation of any of them. As a matter of fact, when it was discovered later that Reagan had secret dealings with the Iranian Ayatollahs, it came out that Reagan had sent the head Iranian at the time a gift Bible which was a modern English version, not the KJV (I can guess how the Ayatollahs treated this well-meant gift and I only hope it inflamed their hemmorhoids).

[SansRecours]

Shoonra,

Please show me a "Jewish Bible." After explaining what is a Jewish Bible, when please did it come into common circulation, and quotable reliance among those founding fathers that might fall into the timeline of history relative to the Proclamation?

As far as the Catholic Bible, I assume that you might mean the Douay Bible, if not that bible, then please identify this "catholic bible." After explaining which Catholic Bible, when please did it come into common circulation, and quotable reliance among those founding fathers that might fall into the timeline of history relative to the Proclamation?

The KJV is written in modern English, (just try reading something in Old English, like the original Beowulf) so without more specificity on which text stream (i.e. Alexandrian, from whence the New American Standard Version, or the Textus Receptus stream of the KJV, both of which harmonize, with both translators having comparative access to the Latin Vulgate, a secondary translation) I fail to see the point.

This would be a good subject for another thread.

Take my reliance on 97-280 for what it is; just evidence that I have "permission" (if you will) from Congress to study and apply...for the good of our nation. That is my point.
It works for me.

Sans

[Shoonra]

I take it from your first comment that you are unaware that Jews have a Bible. There are at least a dozen editions in Hebrew and another dozen in English currently on the market.

As for Catholic Bibles, beside the Douay, which is almost unavailable now, there is the New Jerusalem Bible (not to be confused with a Jewish Bible of similar title), the New American Bible, etc.

I don't see anything in the 1983 Act that limits the meaning of Bible to an edition used by the Founding Fathers, nor any particular version, nor any particular "text stream" ..... although if you insist, then the Act would tend to focus on the [Thomas] Jefferson Bible, which was an abridgement to about one-tenth of the New Testament, and the Wilkerson translation of the Septuagint, and possibly the Geneva Bible, which was very much out of print by 1776 but did accompany the Pilgrim Fathers to these shores. A good many of the Founders of the Republic had the advantage of a classical education which enabled them to read the NT in the original Greek (also a requirement of the British colonial civil service through the 19th century).

[Libertarian]

Please show me a "Jewish Bible."

In the original Hebrew here:

http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/t/t0.htm

One of several Jewish translations into English is here:

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/index.html

[weishaupt1776]

That's enough tangents. If you want to start another topic, do so.

I'm going to start deleting posts to keep this on point

[SansRecours]

I know, I misspelled "admissible". Embarassing

In what capacity is the state functioning?

State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company 324 U.S. 439 (1945)

"Georgia sues in four capacities only two of which we need mention: (1) In her capacity as a quasi-sovereign [?] or as agent and protector of her people against a continuing wrong done to them; and (2) in her capacity as a proprietor to redress wrongs suffered by the State as the owner of a railroad and as the owner and operator of various institutions of the State." (Question mark in brackets mine).

By this supreme court declaration, one can show, by fact, and enter into evidence, that a State can function in more than one capacity (hence many separate but related legal theories to which a dissenter might adhere). Now this case, in and of itself, though relevant to show the foregoing, and further showing a dissent among the court regarding the capacity and legal standing of the state in that particular case, and a divergence of opinion from previous similar cases, is not what I call a strong case to support a legal position. However it works just fine to show factually that the state can and does function in more than one capacity at the same time.

Anyone know the other two capacities, or where the term "quasi-sovereign" originates?

The next case is a federal case and carries the following disclaimer:

BEWARE quoting fed circuits outside your own. Do legal research and find cases holding same, or conflicting opinions in YOUR district first. Local district cases always carry more weight than those outside of your district because out of district cases are not necessarily binding on your district. Especially when raising issues of fact or law that go against the grain of ordinary policy and procedure. District Court conflicts work toward supreme court cases.

Lawson v. Shelby County, Tennessee 211 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2000)

This is an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity case. Sovereignty is one capacity in which a state can function.

"Randy and Sharon Lawson appeal an order dismissing their amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The Lawsons claim that they were denied the right to vote when they refused to disclose their social security numbers as a condition to exercising their right to vote to the Shelby County Election Commission."

This is a typical lawyer generated 14th Amendment citizen/resident subject complaint in the nature of a 42 USC 1983 abomination. The character of the plaintiffs, the Lawsons, being set by the substance of the complaint, not called into question, and therefore an accepted issue of fact.
Am I one of those types of people? I do not for sure know, so I do not EVER want to make that kind of admission. I am just pointing the foregoing out, that the reader and researcher might arrive at the factual conclusion that nearly 99% of the cases one will read proceeds upon a presumption, or worse, supposition, of the nature and the character of the parties. Do you want to make that kind of admission?
Better yet, can you factually support that you are a sovereign by act, deed, etc. and what are these attributes of sovereignty?
I will move on. Continuing with the same case:

"As originally drafted the suits to which the Amendment referred were only those suits brought against a state by out-of-state or foreign citizens. But, in 1890, the Supreme Court held that in-state as well as out-of-state citizens were barred by the Eleventh Amendment from suing a state. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10n S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). Under current law, the Amendment is a bar to federal court jurisdiction whenever any private citizen attempts to sue a state.
There are however, three qualified exceptions... Furthermore, consent [to be sued, a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. Is that you?] may result when a state agrees to administer a federal-state program that imposes certain federal standards upon the state....
Under the third exception a federal court may enjoin a ‘state official’ from violating federal law. Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). The idea behind this is that a suit against a state officer is not a suit against a state when the remedy sought is an injunction against an illegal action, for an officer is not acting on behalf of the state when he acts illegally. In effect, the illegal act strips the state officer of his character as an agent of the state for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Injunctive relief is available under the Young exception only against state officers- not the state itself- who violate federal law."

The state cannot be functioning in a sovereign capacity if the action commences on the signature of one without authority to act in its name, or in the name of its people. Therefore I must know the nature and the character of the party before I can determine if the venue is proper for me.

The nisi prius court will ALWAYS assume venue proper when one makes a general appearance. I need some kind of a fact to determine this, and there are NO FACTS in a traffic matter.

There is a federal nexus attaching to the establishment of the licensing/ registering/ enforcement administrative scheme. However, the changing of my character from sovereign to administrative creature by the Legislature to effect summary action against me because I happen to get on the road cannot be directly found. One must speculate.

One cannot EVER know the nature and the character of the parties in a lower inferior legislative court traffic case, because there is no definitive case addressing the character of the parties. Therefore one cannot know the nature and the cause of a traffic ticket accusation. If that court is intent on moving forward without discovery of these threshold issues of fact, timely, factually, and properly brought, then there is no due process.

Again, there cannot be a duty on me to appear, create a fiction, and assist the state in my own prosecution, regardless of type (civil, criminal, administrative), that is denial of due process.

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

I already establish that I have a duty to question an agent’s authority (Fed Crop v. Merrill).
I herein establish that the state functions in one or more capacities at the same time.
I herein establish that I may be functioning in a character that I may not know or intend. Or, someone, the agent is making a big assumption with its basis in purposeful lack of knowledge.
The foregoing cites are admissible as evidence pursuant to judicial notice of adjudicative facts (Ev. R. 101, 102, 201) and are binding on a lower inferior court, and are binding pre-plea, and pre-appearance (Judicial Notice is mandatory and can be taken at any stage of a proceeding. The time between the receipt of the ticket and the general appearance is a time between stages of a proceeding (the filing of the ticket, and the subsequent general appearance).

Question:
Does due process apply when the "parties" carry the necessary presumptions (because of a statute) that they are merely insurable interests meeting on the highway?

I will try to post one more before I go away for about a week. It will address this question, unless someone brings forward information relative to the minor questions scattered throughout this post, or addressing some issue herein.

Are y'all enjoying this?

Sans Recours