Driver license and registration please?

[weishaupt1776]

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

A question of law, because of the necessary delegated authority to commence an action

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

NO, because it deals with Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter ;
AND Saubject Matter Jurisdiction can be raised AT ANY TIME;
AND incorrect service is grounds for the court to lose jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

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

Seperation of Powers. You Have an executive agency attempting to act in a judicial capacity.
Misjoinder
Due Process (admin remedies not exhausted by an agency prior to judicial review)

QUESTION: Which of the 10 commandments encompass this argument?

They are no doubt bearing false witness trying to get you to believe they are enforcing law, when all they are doing is misapplying administrative process on non-commercial sojourners

Originally Posted by SansRecours

Where are the thinkers and the doers??

Thanks for the kick in the arse, SANS. I was meaning to get to this and forgot.

However, I have been asking this same question for the Year and a half I've been on this board.

I mean w/ 3000 people signed up and only a handful researching ? ? ? ?

I do appreciate those who are new that are just trolling, checking it out - - BUT SOONER OR LATER THE TROLLS GOTTA COME OUT OF THE CAVE AND HUNT FOR NEW FOOD !!!!!!

I do hope others participate in the questions you posed

[SansRecours]

Weis misses one, gets two, gets a half, not necessarily in that order. I do not have the time to make a lengthy post right now. You're in the ballpark. I am hoping a few more will respond. I am going to post more in a couple weeks when I get back to my normal computer.

Out for now...

http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...6&postcount=15

Honestly, after that, I am going to hand him my CATTCU, and he can decide whether he wants to contract with me.

Henry Franklin

[2501]

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

A/: What does Joe Friday want: "just the facts..."


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


A/: Yes? If you don't care (about facts) why should they?


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

A/: It denies remedy. [The opportunity to know the nature and cause] (

QUESTION: Which of the 10 commandments encompass this argument?

A/: #9 Bearing false witness (perjury)

[iscovedel]

Sans-

calm down and let me explain:

First, I realize that this is not PRIMARILY relevant to the thread, however it IS relevant in a subsidiary sense. And, aside from the heaven-and-highwaters grandstanding goings on 'round heyah, I thought I'd just mention that it is best to be VERY wise in CHOOSING your battles...

Second, my first mistake was to ask the the cop what the law was requiring that I surrender my ID and info to him. Then to explain so calmly that I'm not in commerce, and insist on knowing which law, if any I was violating. I'll admit, readily, that I didn't handle this the best way. And from all this ....

I've gotten plenty of experience and INSIGHTas to the REALITY of the circumstance prevalent in this country: as Marc Sherman so adeptly pointed out in his book "Adventures in Legal Land" (something along the lines of) a beaurocrat has only two choices, to either maintain the pretense of good will
or resort to physical violence. He wrote that he only hoped that they would chose to do the former.

after all this, I have to think of a quote by Emerson "Thousands hack at the leaves of Evil while one strikes at the root"

The root of Evil is polytheism, in all it's various forms, which includes taking on the role of Legislator, which is only a position due to God Allmighty. The Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) suffice me and I KNOW that it is FUTILE to struggle using a flawed set of principles, which can so easily be interpreted in ANY WAY THESE CROOKS SEE FIT, to fight against them or to fight for Justice (in it's TRUE sense). I'd rather study a positive than a negative, some thing Real rather than a body of non-entities.

The Constitution was not Divinely Inspired and it makes no sense to go back to any previous understanding of this document when the VERY LANGUAGE IT IS COUCHED IN IS "BAITED", it is written in terms of "art" and thus, from JUMPSTREET it was MEANT to be a TOOL for our collective domination and NEVER our freedom in any REAL sense of the word.

Freedom is freedom from false gods, idols, beliefs, laws and practices.

May god grant us freedom.

peace

PS- Still it's usefull to be able to avoid as much harm as possible via these asinine and nebulous body of lies (or "laws") so, thanks for the reasearch.

[SansRecours]

Give thanke to the LORD for he is good. His mercy endureth forever.
OK as to the first question:
While it is a matter of LAW, that there is no authority for a non-attorney, non-prosecutor, police officer to commence an action in the name and authority of another, especially the State of____, the "court" in wherein this matter proceeds is not a venue or a jurisdiction to hear matters of law. It is only a lower inferior legislative "court" wherein the magistrate is merely a nisi prius (unless before) fact finder proceeding upon presumption that everything prior to the event occurring now, did in fact occur properly, and as a matter of course. ANY appealing of this matter (the traffic ticket in this case) will proceed upon the same presumption. Plain, simple, and provable. The law is settled and no conflict or controversy at law exists.
There is however, a threshold issue of FACT precluding venue and jurisdiction of the lower inferior court. Does the police officer, as a matter of fact, have within himself or his office, the ability, by his signature alone, to commence a prosecution, of any type, and bind any fiction or real person excepting only himself personally, by his signature and indorsement upon a traffic citation??
Since as a matter of law, he does not, and all there is in the lower inferior court is a traffic citation, there arises another threshold issue of FACT precluding venue and jurisdiction of the lower inferior court, and concerning the receiver of the ticket. Does one have a corresponding DUTY to make a general appearance in this matter???
I say, as a matter of fact, NO.
Now if anyone for a minute thinks that raising this issue by a special appearance affidavit or the filing of an (insert type of resistance document here) in that lower inferior legislative court will make the matter disappear, think again.
As to the second question:
Since, the legislature creates inferior legislative courts, it of necessity carries the presumption that the people consent to governance by it for the sake of expediency. Those courts live and execute judgment by presumption without ever having a real fact before it. The traffic ticket is not, and cannot be a fact. It is the conclusions of an incompetent pleader having no prosecutorial investigative authority to make those conclusions, and no personal first hand knowledge.
I believe that ALL presumptions in lower inferior courts (all courts, actually), fall into the alphabetical category following, and that upoin my GENERAL appearance I must acquiesce and/or agree to these presumptions.
a) A traffic ticket is a summons, and/or charge, and/or complaint (of whatever character) and that the traffic ticket is factual, or facts in dispute.
b) That I am satisfied that the investigatory function of the officer personally, and officially ALONE, is sufficient enough to commence the action in the name of someone else (or some thing else) against me.
c) That, the legislature of (insert state here) invests a non-attorney, the officer, personally, and officially, with the authority to charge me, upon his signature/indorsement in the Name of the People of (insert state here) and in whatever capacity this "People of" acts.
d) That I, a living soul (or so I think), agree that I am the subject and object of the lower inferior court venue and jurisdiction (the res) in whatever nature, character, status and standing the eyes of the lower inferior court choose to perceive me at any given moment in time.
e) That I agree that nature, character, status and standing of the parties, and their signature/indorsement, capacity, function, and authority is not an issue.
f) That I agree that my nature, character, status, and standing is not an issue.
g) That I do not dispute the nature, character, status, and standing of the People of (insert state here) , the capacity in which they bring action against me, and in what character or function they choose to bring action me.
h) That constitutional rights are not at issue (res judicata) for the purposes of the appearance or any and all events prior to and subsequent to the matter before the eyes of the court carry the presumption of correctness.
i) That I agree to create the controversy and assist the People in my own prosecution without understanding the nature and character of myself, or my opponent.
These presumptions are all issues of FACT. The ultimate fact finder of the People (whoever that might be) is the jury.
Those participants in the so-called "patriot movement" (for lack of a better term) base many arguments, and postulate many theories of varying complexity (and I have read most, if not all), from the ridiculous to the sublime addressing these preceding presumptions. Mostly, they rebut presumptions with oyther presumptions, or non-provablr conclusions. While their theories have merit as theories, these theories rarely, if ever reach the foregoing foundational and substantive issues, and NEVER place the burden of proof on the party alleging the presumption (if there really is a "party" which, I believe there is not).
So, to answer question two, I can waive these issues of fact upon a GENERAL appearance.
However, I must somehow overcome the presumption of regularity and jurisdiction AS IT PERTAINS TO ME IN THIS INSTANCE, and assert my pre-plea, and pre-appearance issues of fact giving rise to the controversy (do I have a duty to make a general appearance). The Bible says that upon going to war against a city you must first preach peace, or, if a brother offends, tell your brother his fault, or agree with thine adversary. By doing nothing, the lower inferior court will do its function and presume facts, and regularity of proceedings, and issue some business record type computer entry warrant for failure to appear. Pre-plea, and pre-appearance is the ONLY proper time to raise these issues of fact relative to a duty to make a general appearance. These issues of fact are substantive federal questions of fact applying in EVERY State of _____ (insert name). See next post

[SansRecours]

Which leads us to question three:A funny thing happened in the history of this geographical area known as the united States of America. The way in which we might obtain redress of grieveance and justice became a matter of legislative administration, and not operation of law. The three headed beast (legislative, executive, judicial) became subservient to the legislative beast that was, and is not now, yet is (fourth branch administrative government). That legislative beast is the administraive procedures act. It functions (or fictions) inside the executive, legislative, and judicial branches having no real constitutional authority to exist. Therefore, this illegitimate bastard fourth branch of government must disguise itself in the persona of the branch of government to which it applies. It gains legitimacy because it offers judicial review of its administrative procedures. However only the administrative creature can get this "judicial" review, and that only in a de novo sense. In other words, there is no civil remedy at law to address my duty to make a general appearance in light of the lack of authority in the signature of the officer.
I encourage all to investigate where the police power of a state comes into existence, and the nature of its existence. In what branch of government does the State Police reside ??? Is it in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of government ??? Most likely it exists within the realm of an agency, bureau, commission, department, etc. Please do not just take my word on these matters. Read for yourself, dig for the gold nuggets of truth that you might gain substance and not theory. By doing this you will be able to rest in truth, and obtain the facts, evidence, and testimony (proof) necessary to lay a solid evidentiary foundation in the higher courts of general judicial jurisdiction where these issues of fact are properly brought.
So, why am I saying all this? Somewhere, nowhere specifically stated, saving maybe the 14th amendment, there is a presumption that ALL PERSONS are creatures of the legislature. Frankenstein's monster is now the master of Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein was a man made self (person). It has an abnormal brain (no conscience) and tremendous power (unlimited life), but NO AUTHORITY. The common law (people) resisted it for a time (read Dred Scot v. Sanford forgetting for a moment that Sanford was a black man, and viewing Scot's plight as the corporation's plight i.e. lack of standing to sue), but the false god of this land (commerce, can you say Almighty Dollar) prevails pursuant to Romans Chapter 1(those who know the truth hold the truth in unrighteousness. Read the Book).
The good news is that all earthly governments would have no power excepting by grant of the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob thorough Jesus, the Christ. All this nonsense will eventually manifest the Glory of God. Where do you stand??
OK, so I am digressing a bit. So what is the federal question? Every accused has the right to be informed of the NATURE and the CAUSE of an accusation in a criminal case as a matter of DUE PROCESS. No matter how one looks at it, a traffic ticket, by the perjury statement and signature of the officer does accuse. My general appearance creates the presumption that I must have something personally to do with the ticket, does it not? (although it can never be factually determined in that court "who" I am or for that matter "what" I am). My general appearance creates the presumption that I am willing to show up as a defendant (accept that for value ????), then I must be the defendant, or accept the liabilities of that defendant status. "Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly
The NATURE of the case is the type of action: Civil, Criminal, Administrative, at Law, in Equity, Admiralty, Probate.
The nature of the case is determined by the character of the parties: If the party is a boat or its cargo- Admiralty. If a corporation against another corporation per contract - Civil/Equity, and so on. One can never know the nature of the action without knowing or presuming the character of the parties. Although the constitution guarantees informing the accused of nature and cause in a criminal case specifically, I believe that my right to know the nature of the action extends into the quasi-criminal arena, as there exists no quasi-criminal statutes and/or rules of procedure, and there does exist judicial review of administrative procedures, although it may not apply specifically to me. However, in order to exercise this judicial review, one has to establish oneself as this creature subject and object of that jurisdiction. This leads me to the second federal question: Denial of civil remedy, which is also SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (and I'm not talking 14th amendment due process). I can get to this violation of due process more in the next question.
The CAUSE of the accusation is the FACTS (of which there is only lies and hearsay at best) giving rise to the controversy in a jurisdiction (person, place, subject matter) competent to hear the matter and render a decision.
NATURE and CAUSE, CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES, and AUTHORITY are the bedrock of every patriot argument out there, yet, making conclusions relative to the words of art (legalese) by trying to untwist twisted definitions is a far as most take the issue. I say make them testify. That is why I maintain that I have NO IDEA what is a citizen, a resident, a person, a racist, a Jew, a nazi, a patriot, a honky, or any other word having a twisted or emotional definition. You tell me first, and I will see if my perception of who and what I am. I may have to change my perception upon your facts.
I want the reader to understand that years of research, study, and going through and experimenting with others' theories are behind this post. Although the matter seems simple in comparison, say, to the Redemption process, it is because it IS simple. Wherever the reader lives, he just needs to get into legislative history and authority of his particular area to come up with logical and sound questions of fact having a basis in truth that any court, no matter its character can judicially recognize. The hard part is staying out of those lower inferior courts.Then find out if the supreme court agrees with you and if the district courts agree with you not just as a matter of opinion, but in fact and law. If they do, you are building a solid foundation. More importantly, the object of all of this is to place before the living soul hiding behind the agency (judges, politicians, police officers etc.) the moral responsibility to act upon truth, and not bear false witness. On to question four:
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain (swearing). Thou shalt not steal:
The signature of the officer, as a witness, must be personal, as the state has no eyes, ears, nose, or mouth. There is just no such thing as an official witness.
The officer signature creating the presumption of truth under penalty of perjury is the act that gives life to the accusation of not having a driver license. A traffic ticket can have all the writing on it it can, but without the signature, it is not an accusation. If there is no place requirement for such a signature, and you receive such an accusatory instrument, then DUE PROCESS requires confrontation of witnesses against an accused. If you do not have this right in this instance then your character is suffering under a form of impairment and you have a due process and pre-constitutional substantive right to know the nature of the impairment.
As a Christian, I believe that I must exercise the opportunity to inform my brother that he is not about to sin against me, but against God, and he will be the cause of my damage, not only to me, but to himself. Furthermore, in issuing the ticket he will create a presumption allowing a thief to break the command Thou shalt not steal. This is the BEST way to avoid the issuance of the ticket in the first place. (Read Matt 18. I also know that the same principles apply to me, therefore I am equally careful about signing my name to anything (driver license, credit card, cell phone contract, mortgage contract, IRS forms). Judgment always starts at the house of God.
Having said that, and knowing that EVERY traffic ticket is hearsay and false swearing under penalty of perjury, there is now NO place that I can go to redress the matter of the false ticket and swearing because I have to go to a prosecuting attorney who is supposed to be prosecuting me upon the same instrument (why do you think he does not make an appearance until after you make one first???). I am effectively denied a civil remedy at law (again, due process of law).
I am still getting to the point of what is a traffic ticket, ands what is a driver license. I have been spending time identifying what it is not, and time articulating how to conduct oneself upon a confrontation. I intend to finish it if there is interest.
It is disappointing that only two have made an attempt to address my posts and answer my questions. I applaud their efforts, and their communication.
So far I have spent at least 40 hours on this post.
Until then. I am SANS RECOURS, born SANS RECOURS, living SANS RECOURS, looking for recourse.

[KITCHIE]

Actually you are all making it very hard on yourselves. I have contracted with the NHP and RENO PD several times with this conversation.

The date was August 15, 2005, the weather was calm, the temperature about 92 degrees and the skies were blue. The place, Sierra Street, Reno Nevada, downtown where the casinos are. The time was 1305. The police in that area are real hard asses and they will write you up for anything they can, like you blinker is too dim. The following is the story of the person involved in the stop.

I was traveling south on Sierra Street with my friend Greg and I noticed a motorcycle officer in the center lane slowly driving by checking for registration. When he came to my car we were at a red light and when the light changed to proceed he got behind me and turned his lights on. So I drove to get off the main street and as I did he sounded his little horn. I pulled around the corner stopped and turned off the motor.

The officer came up to the car and said he stopped me because of license plate and registration on my car.
He said “Was that issued to you by Department of Motor Vehicles?”

I said “Oh no they only issue license plates for people in commerce!”

He looked at me kind of funny and asked me for my Driver License.

I said “Gee I don’t have it with me because I am not doing any commercial driving today and this is the automobile I do my personal business in.”

So he says do you have any ID?

And I said “Yes, here is a copy of my birth certificate.”

He says do you have any ID with your picture on it?”

I said “Gee I thought I had my Costco Card with me but its at home too.” (And I really did say “gee.”) So he goes back to his motorcycle and in the mean time I remember that I have a pix ID I made so I gave him that.

He took the card and after he called the info in he came back and said “I don’t need this.”

So when he was asking me about an ID he was standing at my windshield. In the middle of my windshield it says “In my opinion Judge Fidel Salcido is an *******! And he keeps glancing at it. Me, I didn’t even notice him looking at it.

So he comes back after checking out my “papers” and says “So you don’t believe you need a Driver’s License is that right?”

I said “ Well not today because I am not doing any commercial business.”

Oh so then you have a Driver’s License”

I said “Yes, but I signed it under duress and it says so in front of my signature.”

He says “So why do you have a Driver’s License if you don’t think you need one?”

Well I do have one but I left it at home it’s on the kitchen sink and he says Look I am not arguing with you and I haven’t said you’re getting a ticket.

And I say “Well I am not arguing either.”

And he askes me again if I believe in a Driver License

I said, “Well if I have to do any commercial driving then it good for me to have one, But so far I don’t do commercial driving.”

He says “You’re a constitutionalist aren’t you.”

I said “Oh well aren’t you? It was written for you ya know.”

He says “And what about insurance you don’t believe in insurance either?”

I said “Well in this case I agree with insurance, because there is a lien on it and the lien holder requires that I have insurance to protect his investment.”

Then the officer says “Well don’t the think the lien holder would want you to register the car too?”

I said “Gee, I can’t think of any benefit to the lien holder whether the car is registered or not so, (pause) no, the lien hold has no interest in that.”

Then he says “Well I could arrest you… And I could write you a citation but you probably wouldn’t sign it and then I would have to arrest you, and I don’t feel like taking you to jail so just get out of here.”

I said “Thank You.” And when I drove off (laughing really really hard with my “guest”) I flashed on the fact that the cop was reading my bumper sticker about Judge Salcido being an ******* we laughed even harder!!!!!!

My friend Greg said after he discovered he had no jurisdiction to stop me, he was trying to get me to argue right to travel and constitutional rights. I just kept the whole conversation in commerce and was very friendly and smiling and absolutely NOT intimidated. The end result…no ticket no arrest and no hassle. The reason... I was not in commerce.

Kitchie

[weishaupt1776]

Kitchie, while i will certainlly attempt this approach and find it to be most valid, we won't know until this is at least tried 30 times.
I learned in statistics class that a sample size of 30 is needed for a reasonable probability

[Shoonra]

In my opinion, you were just very lucky that the cop probably was impatient to end his shift with a minimum of hassle, so he decided not to arrest you. The next cop might not be such a slacker.