First Posts, Open Greeting and Deepest Gratitude!

[WilliamBradford]

I’d love to share with the community a document that I’ve recently fashioned with the means of accepting and possibly discharging a set of violation tickets that I’d received over a month prior. I will add the attachment for viewing.

This state of affairs was the beautiful catalyst for investigation into law at a more coherent and comprehensive level. I’d done prior research but this facilitated an actual penetration and inquisition to a much fuller extent and degree as to what a driver’s license actually was/is. This in turn inevitably led to social security, birth certificate, voter’s registration, insurance, registrations, applications, contract, contracts, and more contracts. This inescapably led further still into uncovering historical truth and current day manifestations of these prior catalysts that appear to stem from attempts at external usurpation of innate freedoms.

…..And So the story goes a bit like the following.....

......I was motioned by a fellow with disco-like, vivid, intense, dazzling and multi-colored lights atop his vessel to succumb while placidly, and joyfully traveling 84mph in an area with odd signs littering the public roadway that stated “speed limit 65” (perhaps according to rules of an unspecified assortment of certain individuals in an unspecified society – of which perhaps I was unknowingly a part). Since there’d been no prior insight, contemplation, or investigation into the contracts which were held upon me I complied with this fellows demands but hesitated before the fateful moment of signature(s).

I asked for clarification of the document(s) and whether I had violated any laws which usurped the freedom established within the constitution. He appeared to have a slight malfunction or what appeared to be program error message (metaphorically speaking) register quite evidently. His behavior became slightly adversarial with a slight tinge of aggression as he stated “What did you say?” And within the midst of my reply he stated “You know what! Let me see that!” And so I let him see it :: hands confusing document to mysteriously dressed fellow :: which in turn instigated a response that I’d refused to sign his document. He objectively etched something onto each of the two documents as he proceeded to toss pink copies of the original onto the seat beside me. I stated that his assertion did not appear to be congruent with facts of our encounter and he further stated that he was not going to stand and argue. I quietly stated that there was no procession towards the creation of an argument, but simply a need for clarity. This had no effect as he seemingly ‘by design’ related that questions would be addressed at a hearing and that I could not ‘drive’ due to the ‘vehicle’ being unregistered.

He then stated that this entire encounter had been recorded via audio and video. I then rejoined that I had likewise recorded the scenario via a high quality vivitar camera that’d been at my disposal and happened to be resting on the seat opposite me while in record mode. This camera being aimed directly at his seemly figure, perhaps for no other means than to clarify my course of action and interaction with this snuggly dressed researcher.

And so I went about my own investigation with a wonder-full new homework assignment and two beautiful and seemingly identical documents with a plethora of ambiguous words! The travels have been highly rewarding thus far and I passionately endeavor to continue my journey in these bearings; at least part time….

I am responding now in an untimely manner as the initial thirty days came and went as I was in research mode and couldn’t be bothered to respond. Although I had read of dishonor etc., I am responding now only after a notice “request for suspension DL-38 form” was issued and sent via mail. And so a fifteen day limit was placed as a window of response time to deem these documents as valid.

I am now on day thirteen of this invitation and plan to personally deliver the following attached document in response to both citations. I chose to emphasize points of interest surrounding jurisdiction and avoided entirely the talk of statutes, codes, or driving/vehicle terminology. Especially since I voluntarily handed over a “driver’s license.” I would be ever so grateful for any such wisdom from the council of elders among this forum of any incongruence one may see within the following document set for delivery tomorrow. Recommendations and criticism are taken swiftly and kindly.



A few quick notes regarding this document:

- I feel that the appearance of documents is always important and can make the difference between the receivers disregarding the document vs. multiple viewing along with taking a few profound, firm glances at what is being stated.

- The clan badge at the top right and lower right represent the family name of Ross of which I belong.

- The fellow on the lower left is George Ross, signer of the Declaration of Independence and uncle to Betsy Ross. George Ross’ signature is also in my direct family lineage scripture as being direct descended grandfather, hence the inclusion of his image and signature.

- The watermark in the background is complements of Aksis! This seal is brilliant and powerful in my opinion. Thank you for such incredible work. I am ever so appreciative of your inherent talents!

- Many of the ideas intrinsic in this document are based on unconditional acceptance and also a furthered need for clarification.

- Greatest and deepest thanks to Robert Menard; for a number of his statements were used in this document as he had established them for free usage.


Attached is a scanned and converted image of the document, hopefully it appears legible. Address has been removed. 'Save As' to manage the size.

Provisional Recognition.JPG


In Truth and Gratefulness,
~ William Bradford

[IanAnd]

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

I chose to emphasize points of interest surrounding jurisdiction and avoided entirely the talk of statutes, codes, or driving/vehicle terminology. Especially since I voluntarily handed over a “driver’s license.”

First, I'm no expert in areas like this, although I have had some experience in similar situations. So, I'll offer you the benefit of my understanding of the circumstance you described without making any representations as to legality.

According to my understanding of David Merrill's material, in this forum and another, by offering a "driver license" as identification you have just identified yourself as a (possible) party (depending upon what you do next) to the offer you received. According to David, you made an "appearance" and were "arraigned" by the side of the road through voluntarily offering the DL as I.D.

Had you gone ahead and "signed" the offer, you would have had 72 hours to either accept or refuse the offer, depending upon whether it was viewed as being beneficial to you or not. Had you decided to refuse the offer, the correct action to take would have been to write "refused for cause" on the presentment and returned it "timely" (viz. within 72 hours) to the head of the issuing agency (chief of police or head of the highway patrol or whomever). The refusal would have been in response to the nexus of the ALL CAPS name on the presentment with the cap and lower case name of the flesh and blood person who signed as a surety for the corporate fiction. In essence it would have stated that "I'm not the person you seek." In other words, misnomer is grounds for abatement.

As for the question you asked regarding the process you contemplate to undertake in response to your plight, I'll let others wiser than myself address such matters. My first thought regarding your question about "any incongruence one may see within the following document" was that you had already "appeared" and been "arraigned" before the court at the roadside. Yet this doesn't necessarily mean that this circumstance should stay this way, depending upon what follows in the actual court appearance. Not signing any papers that might be offer you at the court would be one way to avoid any further incriminating acts.

My honest opinion about the process you contemplate using (with your document) is that it may very well be a losing process in the eyes of the court. You really have to be very careful when entering court to have your ground staked out beforehand. From the few details you've given, I'm not sure where you stand (legally or otherwise) in relation to the situation you face. Everything hinges on whether you allow the court proceeding to proceed without challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

[Shoonra]

From what you've told us, you were doing 84 mph in a 65 zone. And you ignored a traffic court date. I don't need the Magic 8 Ball to tell me what the future holds for you.

[WilliamBradford]

Thank you for your reply IanAnd & Shoonra!


Some clarification:

A traffic court date was never set.


Overview of their procedure:

Right now I have a pending DL-38. DL-38s are used to enforce the collection of monies on traffic and non-traffic cases in which defendants failed to make payments when required. It is used to 'notify' the defendant in writing that his/her license will be suspended if he/she 'fails to respond' to the traffic citation or summons. A DL-38 cannot be issued for a parking violation.

Their code states that once a citation is given to the defendant or a summons is issued, the defendant has ten days to respond. If on the eleventh day, the defendant has not responded, (which I did not) the code requires the defendant be notified (which they did via DL-38) that he/she has fifteen days from the date of notice to 'respond' to the citation/summons before his/her license is suspended. In accordance with Section 1533 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, the defendant has 15 days to 'respond' to the defendant’s copy of the DL-38. If the defendant does not 'respond' by the fifteenth day, the Magisterial District Judge shall notify the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by issuing the appropriate License Suspension Request.


And so I've 'responded' for clarification. In my conditional acceptance I state that I 'will' pay the fine, upon clarification and proof of claim. I have no plans to attend their 'alleged' court. I have no intention of signing any 'alleged' documents or contracts. My document, if read clearly, cuts to the foundation of their claim for jurisdiction.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA is a private corporation. However, this corporation is not listed with the Secretary of State. You’ll notice that all alleged States and Provinces secure this tactic upon their citations and summons. You will notice listed at the top of document(s) something to the effect of COMMONWEALTH OF, HEADQUARTERS COUNTY OF, PROVINCE OF, COUNTY OF, etc. These are ‘doing business as’ titles. They are private corporations, and as such must be listed with the Secretary of State. They however are not capable of registering with the Department of State and I’ll allow you to consider that for a bit. Perhaps you'll come to dis-cover why that is the case.

You see that, if in fact they affirm that they're not a corporation, than this begs many a jovial question as to basic common law procedure. Are they abiding in common law procedure? If they state that they are approaching you from position of municipality or the county, than they must clarify that in writing, under full commercial liability.

The burden is upon them to verify that ‘they’ do in fact, even exist. There is no evidence to suggesting this as a reality. If they are able to verify that they do in fact exist (as a corporation) then the feast rolls back into common law procedure.


IanAnd you stated, "According to my understanding of David Merrill's material, in this forum and another, by offering a "driver license" as identification you have just identified yourself as a (possible) party (depending upon what you do next) to the offer you received. According to David, you made an "appearance" and were "arraigned" by the side of the road through voluntarily offering the DL as I.D."

Thank You. That was very well stated; and I have (since the initial underpinnings) received that understanding. And therein I did seemingly establish equity with that society based on forfeiture of DL to the fellow in the uniform.


IanAnd you stated, "Had you gone ahead and "signed" the offer, you would have had 72 hours to either accept or refuse the offer, depending upon whether it was viewed as being beneficial to you or not. Had you decided to refuse the offer, the correct action to take would have been to write "refused for cause" on the presentment and returned it "timely" (viz. within 72 hours) to the head of the issuing agency (chief of police or head of the highway patrol or whomever). The refusal would have been in response to the nexus of the ALL CAPS name on the presentment with the cap and lower case name of the flesh and blood person who signed as a surety for the corporate fiction. In essence it would have stated that "I'm not the person you seek." In other words, misnomer is grounds for abatement.

Thank You once more. This too, is a pleasant reminder of some past insights that I've received through browsing different threads on this topic. I'm assuming that for this approach to maintain validity one would not wish to create equity, such as in the case of revealing a DL, to uphold this procedure. Is that a correct understanding? Pretty clear-cut really, and certainly viable for any future meetings!


Thank you for your suggestions and input. I am still taking some of it in! Still seeking further clarity. Thank you IanAnd, perhaps I'll go browse some more of David's writings on these matters as you suggest.

Highest Blessings to You Both,
~William

[IanAnd]

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

I'm assuming that for this approach to maintain validity one would not wish to create equity, such as in the case of revealing a DL, to uphold this procedure. Is that a correct understanding?

Yes. That is correct. A self-styled document of identification, in the form of a notarized affidavit, with all the same information as a state issued I.D. or DL (viz. name, address, physical description, nativity rather than D.O.B. with perhaps only the month and year, a signature -- showing only "true" name as opposed to "full" legal name ["true name" being first and middle with no last or familial name; although a familial surname could be mentioned on the document as long as it was enclosed in brackets [like this] which negates its inclusion in the document], and a photograph) might be used as a substitute for the DL on future occasions, is my understanding.

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

A traffic court date was never set.

Well, that's an interesting wrinkle that certain would have some bearing on the situation. It would have been worth mentioning in your first post for clarification for the respondents to your post. This puts your initial question in that post into a bit clearer perspective in terms of context.

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

Right now I have a pending DL-38. DL-38s are used to enforce the collection of monies on traffic and non-traffic cases in which defendants failed to make payments when required. It is used to 'notify' the defendant in writing that his/her license will be suspended if he/she 'fails to respond' to the traffic citation or summons.

This begs the question: When and under what circumstances were you (or your corporate legal name) ever "required" to make payment on anything, much less a traffic or non-traffic case? If no court date was ever set and no court proceeding ever occurred, how is it that this "county" (I'm assuming it is a county that is after you) has the b*lls or comes by the "authority" to extort "money" on their paper issuances?

If, in their eyes yet, you haven't made a fatal "appearance" into their venue of jurisdiction, then perhaps you still have ground to stand on. Their presentments would then be frivolous and a nuisance.

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

Their code states that once a citation is given to the defendant or a summons is issued, the defendant has ten days to respond. If on the eleventh day, the defendant has not responded, (which I did not) the code requires the defendant be notified (which they did via DL-38) that he/she has fifteen days from the date of notice to 'respond' to the citation/summons before his/her license is suspended. In accordance with Section 1533 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, the defendant has 15 days to 'respond' to the defendant’s copy of the DL-38. If the defendant does not 'respond' by the fifteenth day, the Magisterial District Judge shall notify the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by issuing the appropriate License Suspension Request.

So this is their "reasoning" for making their presentment. Well, you at least got past the issuance of a court summons. An interesting and notable aspect of this situation, indeed.

Where you stand in your situation, then, is similar to a circumstance that currently faces me. (See the thread "What constitutes 'appearance' in this instance" in this same Travel forum for background info.)

Out of curiosity was your "vehicle" disabled or towed and impounded in the first instance by the roadside when the citation was first issued? And if it was the latter, have you been able to retrieve it since then? (These details are always good info for newbies who visit the forum to give an idea of the consequences involved in standing up for one's rights in light of the corporations which attempt to usurp them.)

In light of these new details that you have provided in relation to the document you wish to submit to the Magisterial District Judge (MDJ), you seem to have outlined your ground fairly well. Although the document is likely to have little or no effect on the MDJ's decision which is bound to uphold the position of the fund and the bank.

Originally Posted by WilliamBradford

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA is a private corporation. However, this corporation is not listed with the Secretary of State. . . . These are ‘doing business as’ titles. They are private corporations, and as such must be listed with the Secretary of State. They however are not capable of registering with the Department of State. . . . if in fact they affirm that they're not a corporation, th[e]n this begs many a jovial question as to basic common law procedure. Are they abiding in common law procedure? If they state that they are approaching you from position of municipality or the county, th[e]n they must clarify that in writing, under full commercial liability.

The burden is upon them to verify that ‘they’ do in fact, even exist. There is no evidence to suggesting this as a reality. If they are able to verify that they do in fact exist (as a corporation) then the feast rolls back into common law procedure.

By this you seem to have a good understanding of the issues involved. It would seem, with this understanding, that you have ample ground to stand on. This must mean, then, that you stand ready to have your DL suspended. (Big whoop! So what!) If you are not "driving" in commerce and are not "transporting" goods or passengers for compensation, then a DL is not necessary.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by IanAnd

Yes. That is correct. A self-styled document of identification, in the form of a notarized affidavit, with all the same information as a state issued I.D. or DL (viz. name, address, physical description, nativity rather than D.O.B. with perhaps only the month and year, a signature -- showing only "true" name as opposed to "full" legal name ["true name" being first and middle with no last or familial name; although a familial surname could be mentioned on the document as long as it was enclosed in brackets [like this] which negates its inclusion in the document], and a photograph) might be used as a substitute for the DL on future occasions, is my understanding.

If one tenders this ID or any other then one is submitting to the jurisdiction of that agency in that moment.
Either one is traveling and exercising their liberty to do so or not. If one is exercising that liberty then there is absolutely no reason to be consenting and providing what a corporate agent is demanding.
Assuming one is moving along in an automobile not under a title trust with the STATE; If your liberty is being detained/seized then the agent should be producing a valid warrant displaying a wet ink signature by a judge along with a verified affidavit.
If the agent isn't volunteering such warrant they better have probable cause backed by articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime and are prepared to take you directly before a magistrate.

Consent on your part to anything else is submitting to their jurisdiction. A free man is not required to produce any document of identification for the Corporate U.S., STATE, COUNTY, CITY's satisfaction.

If you doesn't Notice them of your rights they will certainly spend more time seeking how they may attach you in their right.

[IanAnd]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

If one tenders this ID or any other then one is submitting to the jurisdiction of that agency in that moment.

Either one is traveling and exercising their liberty to do so or not. If one is exercising that liberty then there is absolutely no reason to be consenting and providing what a corporate agent is demanding.

Assuming one is moving along in an automobile not under a title trust with the STATE.

If your liberty is being detained/seized then the agent should be producing a valid warrant displaying a wet ink signature by a judge along with a verified affidavit.
If the agent isn't volunteering such warrant they better have probable cause backed by articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime and are prepared to take you directly before a magistrate.

Consent on your part to anything else is submitting to their jurisdiction. A free man is not required to produce any document of identification for the Corporate U.S., STATE, COUNTY, CITY's satisfaction.

If you don't Notice them of your rights they will certainly spend more time seeking how they may attach you in their right.

This is all well and good, ezrhythm. Easy for someone to say on a forum bulletin board in providing what in theory should work. Although perhaps quite a different story in the field, where one must walk the talk. Not all LEOs are well versed in the fine points of the law. They may not recognize your private domain.

In other words, what happens in worst case scenario and how would one handle that? The more detail provided, the better.

Have you personally used this approach successfully? And if so, might you be willing to give testimony here for the benefit of the rest of us as to what ensued? We would like to know how you handled this situation.

I say this because this approach seems to be a bit confrontational, and that is the last thing I would think that a reasonable person would want to do when faced with a LEO in a traffic stop situation.