Driver license and registration please?

[RickA]

Is that officer's signature under penalty of perjury an individual and personal act, or is it an official act??

An official act. anything outside of the scope of duty would be an individual act.

[SansRecours]

Even though the officer signs it "Officer Joe Smith" I firmly believe that it is a personal act. All swearing or affirming is a personal act.

While I believe that writing a traffic ticket is an official duty, (and we will come back to to this topic) the signing of it under oath and/or penalty of perjury can be nothing less than personal. Further, it is axiomatic that no one can make an affidavit, oath, or affirmation on behalf of another.

This is an important point. Qualified immunity and insurance covers official acts and some discretionary personal acts of the officer relative to policy and procedure, but not all personal acts. Officers know or should know that their signature is personal, no matter how it is written when any kind of oath or perjury statement attaches. Officers know or should know that the signing of their name and swearing something that is hearsay to be true is bearing false witness. No trained professional in LAW enforcement can be so ignorant as to not know the diffrerence between fact and hearsay.

HOWEVER, the traffic ticket is a chameleon. So lets explore this avenue regarding the signature on the ticket for awhile. Now I am not expecting anyone to take my word for anything, but since we have one saying official act (RickA), and one saying personal act(2501), here's another two part question:

Question: If the signing of the ticket is an official act, in whose name is the officer acting?

Question: If the signing of the ticket is a personal act, in whose name is the officer acting?

You will waive this argument upon a general appearance in the lower inferior court. This question is vital if we are to understand our right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. It is also vital if we are to discern what is a traffic ticket.

Are we having fun yet?

[sabredrivr]

the officer signs as a personal act.as an affidavitt requires.
not to distract from your purpose but,
what if the occifer isn't required to sign/there is no place on the citation for an occifers' sig?
chameleon.hm.
good choice of words.lead on.....

[2501]

I have had town of Xxxx Xxxxxx police department pass registered personal mail to the appropriate party. The matter was addressed to their personal capacity. I did that because the contract I held with their name on it was signed by them in the space marked officer.

Having fun, can't wait to learn more!

[SansRecours]

Hello again,

To answer sabredrvr: I've seen parking citations that do not require signatures.

If there is a traffic citation out there that does not require the issuer to sign. I would very much like to see it. It will go a long way to proving that a traffic citation is merely a .... (I'll get to it)

To answer 2501:I assume that by the phrase "contract I held with their name on it" you mean the traffic citation. One thing that the traffic ticket IS NOT is a contract, at least, not entirely. There is part where one signs their name indicating a promise to appear, or promise to contact court. If it says something like I promise to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, or I promise to appear, I will have a very hard time "signing" the ticket. (the word "signature" is a small word of massive importance, it has a very specific legal meaning)

I am digressing on this post on purpose to talk about why a traffic ticket is a chameleon, and because I put my name on the citation and get a "yellow" chameleon. The court gets a carbon copy of my name on the "pink" chameleon, which has totally different printing on it. The "agency" (important word I will get to later) gets the original "white" chameleon which also has different printing on it. The State of ... gets NO COPY.

At this point in time, I make the following comment:

It is not my purpose to tell anyone how to "beat a ticket." I want to alter or abolish the unconstitutional administrative fourth branch of government masquerading under the guise of executive and judiciary, as is my right under God, and the duty of those under the constitution to recognize it. The reason that I want to alter or abolish it is simple: It violates God’s commandments, therefore it imposes no duty on me or anyone else for its propagation. Officer Joe Smith will ALWAYS bear false witness (and get immunity and insurance protection) and the lower inferior court presiding official will ALWAYS commit theft (and get immunity and insurance protection).

In the law library, one can find the volumes of administrative procedure governing the particular state agencies that use particular procedures and forms in the course of its functions. All one needs to do is find out the components of a traffic citation, its various copies (yellow, pink, green, white, whatever), and the purpose of each copy. The anatomy of the chameleon, so to speak.

The responsibility for the construction and the implementation of the form is generally upon the commissioner of motor vehicles. The departments of motor vehicles are agencies of the state. State Police departments are generally under the Department of Highway Safety, or Public Safety. Whatever the name, it is an agency of the state. All of these fictions are agencies and instrumentalities of the state.

The state can perform many functions. It can also act in many capacities. The state can act like a business owner. The state can also exercise sovereignty (theoretically, the will of the people). The state cannot do both at the same time.

A lot of people may notice that the constitution (federal and state) are explicit in protecting the rights of the criminal accused. There the standards of proof are of the highest level. There the standards of nature and cause and various other elements are at their highest standards. At the civil level, those standards are present, but more relaxed. In the civil realm, legal fictions have standing to sue. Legal fictions can sue other legal fictions or bring actions against corporeal living souls, and the principles of equity prevail. However, there must exist a case in controversy.

Has anyone ever seen the quasi-criminal, or quasi-civil, rules of procedure????? They do not exist. Has anyone ever seen the law REQUIRING everyone that happens to be out on the roadway to submit to a lower inferior legislative branch "court," if that is what it is. Has anyone ever seen the lower inferior court presiding official switch robes so that it can be certainly known what is the NATURE of the proceeding. It is like going to the dentist to get a tooth ache looked at, only to find out that the dentist is actually the funeral director, and the Novocaine is embalming solution. (Sans, please get off of the soapbox)

Well I just laid a lot out there. But I hope one can see where I am going. Back to the question-

If the officer is signing the ticket in his official capacity, then he is an agent. The law on agency requires that only the principal can testify as to the acts and omissions of its agents. The actions of the agent, if outside the scope of an agency authority, is not the act of the principal (which is why the officer can only at best achieve qualified immunity for his discretionary actions. He cannot shoot me for not having a driver license without thereby becoming liable completely for his actions). Does an officer have authority to write a citation? Absolutely. Does he have authority to sign the ticket and state that the information on that ticket is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief? Yes, he does. Does he have the authority to sign that ticket if he has knowledge and belief that it is all hearsay (excepting of course his seeing the improper lane change)? NO. If you and I do not have the authority to steal individually, then we do not have the authority to create an agency and arm it to steal on our behalf. Does his lack of knowledge or training in the ability to determine between fact and conclusion, fact and presumption, evidence and hearsay exonerate him from responsibility for the writing under his signature? Maybe, if one shows him a license. Maybe, if one makes a general appearance, but actually NO.

So Officer Joe Smith signs officially he is an employee of the state police agency. The agency is a creature of the Legislature. The Legislature is the creature of the people. (Hold this thought)

Question: Does the officer have any authority to make a complaint in the name and the authority of the people?

Question: If the officer does not have the authority to make a complaint in the name of the people, then who does?

If Officer Joe Smith signs the citation in his personal and individual capacity, then he is personally and individually liable for that which his signature purports to be true. This is the import on the law concerning signatures, it is also the law on pleading (with exceptions of course). However, he can only sign for that which he has the ability to enforce by use of the courts. He must be the real party of interest. Or, he must be an attorney, or have an attorney.

Until next time.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

It will go a long way to proving that a traffic citation is merely a .... (I'll get to it)

agency determination?

Sans, if you have the time, I am wondering on your input here
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...ht=STATU TORY

http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...9&postcount=11

and regarding so called "quasi criminal rules" , an anlysis of the "Florida Rules of Traffic court(please try not to laugh too hard)
http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...0&postcount=13

[2501]

SansRecours,
1). The signed contract I held was a fraudulent bail receipt/ appearance contract (it was upon bail that I recieved the below mentioned yellow paper)

2). Of all the fraudulent yellow papers I've got I picked one of the more interesting: I have had issued to an alleged legal fiction a UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET from alleged POLICE AGENCY XXXX ... Description of Violation AUO 3rd on 7/31/04 (yet the date on the ticket is 8/11/04) none of these fraudulent yellow paper issuers have ever asked for a signature BTW!! (I'll learn how to upload the image an upload a scan this weekend.) scanned image here:




as for the questions: the officer can present information

THERE MAY BE BETTER WAYS THAN THIS -- ***READ AT YOUR OWN RISK**** -- here is one way the people can act: ..."not for himself alone but also [for others] as a 'private attorney general" vindicating a policy that [the Constitution writers] considered of the highest priority." Newman v Piggie Park Enterprises
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/390/400.htm>,390 US 400; 88 S Ct 964, 966; 19 L Ed 2d 1263, 1265 (1969); Oatis v Crown Zellerbach Corp, 398 F2d 496,499 (CA 5,1968); and Jenkins v United Gas Corp, 400 F2d 28, 33 n 10 (CA 5 1968). In such a case there can be no intent on the part of the accused to violate the law, as the purpose is to secure enforcement of the supreme law, the Constitution
Some agent from the Federal Reserve was on C-span about a month ago or so and she mentioned the Private Attorney General thing as if it was a bad thing because of all these excessive lawsuits where ther is no real injured party.

[SansRecours]

Alright, I'm back for another post. I'll be away for about a month after this one so I think I will try to ask some tough questions. But first, I will address the previous two questions:

The duty for the prosecution of any action in the name of the State or the People falls upon the official elected by the people of the State, or its Legislature. If one is charged with a city ordinance, one can go to the local city library and gaze at the city charter, or its articles of incorporation wherein the people (allegedly) declare who has the authority to commence an action in the name and the authority of that particular jurisdiction. If a state ordinance, one can find the authority to commence an action in the name of the people as a statute. Any "court" regardless of type must take judicial notice of a city charter or state statute. In other words, the foregoing is self-proving evidence

Every time the authority will fall to an attorney. Every time it will fall upon a city or municipal law director and/or prosecutor. Every time it will fall to a state and/or count prosecutor, district attorney, or like entity. This is also self-proving.

Any time there is a legal fiction as a party to a suit (and the state, city, village, etc. is a legal fiction) it has to have attorney representation. See any Rules on Pleading. It will usually say that an action must be brought by the real party of interest, or its attorney. This is self proving.

I highly doubt that Officer Smith is an attorney.

Does Officer Smith have the authority to commence an action, and bind the people of the State, or any legal fiction by his signature alone? NO is the answer. If one believes yes, then please show it. The best one can roduce is a rule of procedure in traffic cases.

Rules of Procedure do not supersede Statutes. This is also self proving.

So, in order to determine what a traffic ticket is, we find one thing that it is not: It is not a complaint. It cannot be a complaint because the officer's signature lacks the authority to properly commence the action.

Now Weishaupt1776 answered that a traffic ticket is nothing more than an agency determination. I believe that answer is getting really close to the nature of a traffic ticket. I wonder under what branch of government Administrative Procedure falls? We must explore this avenue.

So here is the big questions:

QUESTION: Is the foregoing argument a question of law, or a question of fact?

QUESTION: Can one waive this argument in a lower inferior court? Why?

QUESTION: What, if any, constitutional questions arise from this argument?

QUESTION: Which of the 10 commandments encompass this argument?

Like I said, I will be away from my computer for about a month, unless I can get to a workstation to access the forum. I believe I am leaving y'all with a good bit to chew on.

Sans

[iscovedel]

I just had a first-hand experience with this and have yet to go to court. I have a license (I drive a cab at the moment) and I also have proof of insurance etc...

I was pulled over here in Utah and I guess the cop wasn't having a good day or I didn't deal with this correctly (I see it as a test/punishemnt from God in all honesty)..all that aside after a bout thirty seconds this jackbooted nazi redneck is cussing at me (I dont have to tell you s$%t about the law, it says it in the f$%&ing law so give me the F%^&ing license!) things escalate and my doors been opened, he rips my shirt to shreds trying to pull me from the car, backup comes (this is in the course of a minute or two) Im about to be tased, (We are going to tase you!) I reply "this is assualt, I haven't broken any law, I'm only asking you a question!" (I'd just left kinkos, copying "personal" documents on my way to a friends place, sober etc) theres general chaos, sudeenly I'm in the middle of a cop convention, honestly probably six or seven cars, I'm wrenched from the car, a bit peeved myself at having perfect strangers with tasers screaming at me...I'm on the ground arms twisted, dragged bodily to the car, plead the fifth, give a breathalyzer (maybe this is a sticking point?) all 000's taken to jail, still maintaining silence, kept in a small cell with nothing in it but a drain in the floor, planning on waiting my three days but can't use the toilet (they refuse me this unless I cooperate) after 12 hours I submit to cooperate (under duress obviously) use th toilet in a another cell in booking, I'm there for 8 hours beofre I'm booked, charged with 6 counts (my shirts still shredded tied together in spots, lol) "obstruction of justice, failure..headlights, resisting arrest, posessing two drivers licenses, driving with no DL, no proof of insurance, (I had these just hadn't had a chance to provide them) so...the moral of the story (I got bailed out thankfully a couple hours later) like akira said, choose your battles (I've learned that the hard way )

[SansRecours]

Iscovedel, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That topic is:

What is that driver license, and what is that traffic ticket?

You did not say what is was that you did to provoke that officer. It is doubtful that this is a random act on the part of the officer. It is not impressive that your shirt was ripped off or you were hauled to jail. It is horrific!

This thread is not about causing things like that to happen. It is about how to change our attitudes so that things like that do not happen to us. It is about acting in such a manner that will tend toward respect of our position, not contempt for it. If you want to post a horror story on this thread, please say what exactly you did to precipitate the reaction of the officer (he did after all want to test for alchohol).

This thread is also about recognizing facts, evidence, and testimony. A story about a result without stating the cause is none of those things.

Where are the thinkers and the doers??