Insurance & the Private Automobile

http://www.lawsocietyyukon.com/act.asp

7) The executive may make rules prohibiting members from facilitating, or participating in, the practice of law by persons who are not authorized to practise law. (Added by S.Y. 2004, c.14, s.3)

This is from the LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT … the question is: WHO is not authorized to practise law?… it means everyone who is not a lawyer. Nice monopoly they got going there. Without a lawyer they can’t or won’t hear private people, we are not affiliated with the court as we have sworn no oaths BUT it is presumed there is nexus through a birth certificate. I asked a judge point blank how I would come to have a legal fiction identity and he told me the birth certificate. So I can only presume he was not lying. As this court case says … the law is riddled with LEGAL FICTIONS …

Staufen v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [2001] B.C.J. No. 1109 Vancouver Registry No. L010409; British Columbia Supreme Court Vancouver, British.In Chambers Judgment: May 29, 2001

“… order sought by Mr. Staufen as PARENS PATRIAE or ?by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction.

[para9] Whilst there is no evidence before the Court that Mr. Staufen was born in Vancouver or, for that matter, where he was born, The Law Is Riddled With Legal Fictions, It Is Said.

The Court may do so here, Mr. Azevedo suggests, and CREATE A LEGAL FICTION WITH RESPECT TO MR. ?STAUFEN'S NAME AND PLACE AND DATE OF BIRTH.

[para10] As defined by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary a "legal fiction" is "an ASSERTION ACCEPTED AS TRUE (though probably fictitious) to ACHIEVE A USEFUL PURPOSE, ESP. IN LEGAL MATTERS". In An Historical Introduction to English Law and Its Institutions (3rd ed.) by Harold Potter, the learned author, at p. 302, groups the fictions ?used into three classes:

(1) FICTIONS USED TO INCREASE THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS;
(2) FICTIONS DESIGNED TO AVOID ***BERSOME AND ?ARCHAIC FORMS OF ACTION;
(C) FICTIONS HAVING A FALSE ASSUMPTION OF ?FACT IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE REMEDY THE COURT COULD GRANT.

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd ed.), at p. 787, provides two examples in order to illustrate how the former practice and jurisdiction of the courts rested largely on fictions. Thus, THE KING'S BENCH ACQUIRED JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS FOR DEBT BY "SURMISING" OR "FEIGNING" THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A TRESPASS WHICH HE HAD NEVER COMMITTED AND THEN ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED AGAINST HIM FOR DEBT. In the second example the Court of Exchequer acquired ?jurisdiction by permitting the plaintiff in certain actions to plead that he was a debtor to the king and that by reason of the cause of action pleaded he had become less able to pay his wholly fictitious debt to the king.

[para11] Although FICTIONS HAVE BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY OVER THE CENTURIES TO EXPAND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS and the nature of ?the relief they can grant, I have not been referred to, and have not in my own research found, an instance where a fiction has been used by a court to invent the facts necessary to decide the very issue before ?it. JUDGES ARE FREQUENTLY TOLD BY APPELLATE COURTS NOT TO SPECULATE ON THE EVIDENCE. What is sought here would require the Court to do more ?than speculate.

Shoonra is right, according to the rules of their sandbox, but especially class actions must be represented by a lawyer in admiralty court. In the MARINE ACT, it states that the courts are admiralty. http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...C/cma/menu.htm

Which is why John Dempsey got booted out, he is a lawyer per se as he has the piece of paper that says he is, but has not paid the dues necessary to join their fraternity, the Law[less] Society as he calls it. http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/johndempsey.htm

[idknow]

Originally Posted by free_martha

I have a friend in Ontario that rides *bareback* as he calls it. He is sans everything, driver*s license, and insurance, absolutely nothing. Well the police stopped him and came pounding up to the car he was driving and demanded, IS THIS YOUR CAR? And he answered, as a matter of fact, no it is not, it belongs to the province. So the cops went back and radioed to the police station and talked for about twenty minutes, and then came back and said, you are free to go and so he just drove off * and he still drives sans.

[cut]

the use of "bare-back" is extremely apropos given the history of traveling by horse for six millenia until the mid to late 1800s!

Until horseless carriages became available, man of the 1800s had more in common with Adam and all his progeny going forward than with us who have lived and do live during the twentieth century on forward!

Fascinating point of view to see that from.

thanks much for the post.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by free_martha

FYI: Here is the discussion about war and emergency powers:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/misc-d...owers-act.html

And David posted the True Name FAMILY created by Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT. He said it was too long in entirety to post here but he would probably send it to you if you ask.

Formed of general public trust- this is the form of the current public trust
[cut]

What's the url to finding the compelte text online?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

'human being' may only be the 'person'.


Commonly quoted. However, few seem to take the time to realize that the vantage point of the speaker or author might be important to consider.

pro per ty - stuff owned by State persons.

State - Estado - Estate (very visible especially if you've heard the Spanish term 'Estados Unidos')

individual - a unit of the Estate.

The point being that the Estate is not speaking outside itself. Its regarding things that it can regard and not those things that it cannot.

So, i'm lookin at "pro-per-ty" above and I'm thinking that the word appears to have a Latin source, So, in latin it's

pro-per-ti

The same thing can be done with "Estados Unidos"

And remember that the Spanish language also closely related to Latin, so that

if "unidos" is literally parsed as "uni-dos" then that's literally "one-two" in english which doesnt make sense to me immediately.

but, the word "unidos" is pronounced "oo-nee-dos"

Perhaps it's just a case of twisting the pronunciation, or the stems of the word?

aside, "pronunciation" == pronounce + ation

"pro per", "propia persona" == "for oneself" or "one's own"
also, "in pro per" and in greek, the word for "one's own" is idios.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by free_martha

http://thompsonnews.blogspot.com/200...6723018 73089

Read 12 Statutes at Large 319, you will have your answer. They have never repealed this statute.

THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ca. 60, 61. 1861.

Chap. LX.--An Act to confiscate Property used for lnsurrectionary Purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if, during the present or any future insurrection against the Government of the United States, the President of the United States shall have declared, by proclamation, THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE OPPOSED, and THE EXECUTION THEREOF OBSTRUCTED, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person or persons, his, her, or their agent, attorney, or employee, shall purchase or acquire, sell or give, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffer the same to be used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or RESISTANCE TO THE LAWS, or any person or persons engaged therein; or if any person or persons, being the owner or owners of any such property, shall knowingly use or employ, or consent to the use or employment of the same as aforesaid, ALL SUCH PROPERTY IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE LAWFUL SUBJECT OF PRIZE AND CAPTURE WHEREVER FOUND; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE SEIZED, CONFISCATED, AND CONDEMNED.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That such PRIZES AND CAPTURE shall be condemned in the DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the amount, or IN ADMIRALTY IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SAME MAY BE SEIZED, or into which they may be taken and proceedings FIRST
INSTITUTED.

Sec. 3..And be it further enacted, That the Attorney-General, or any district attorney of the United States in which said property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of' the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such
labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of theUnited States, contrary to the provisions of this act. Approved, August 6, 1861.

The words, "THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE OPPOSED, and THE EXECUTION THEREOF OBSTRUCTED," are self evident that if you oppose the IRC then you come under this war powers' statute and as an enemy, have no rights. These are facts that anyone cannot dispute as the law is clear on this as are the words, "RESISTANCE TO THE LAWS."

They cannot dispute the fact that under War Powers the President is commander-in- chief and is one of the functions under the Constitution that the President can enforce. He does so under the flag showing the jurisdiction of the commander-in-chief, that being the gold fringe on the flag. This is clear in the words of the
Statute, "ALL SUCH PROPERTY IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE LAWFUL SUBJECT OF PRIZE AND CAPTURE WHEREVER FOUND; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE SEIZED, CONFISCATED, AND CONDEMNED."

Now when you look at every court in America you will see that the commander-in-chief is exercising his constitutional authority under the war power's acts. He also is exercising admiralty jurisdiction that is the supreme authority under which gives him total authority as showed by these words, "PRIZES AND CAPTURE" shall be condemned in the "DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the amount, or IN ADMIRALTY IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SAME MAY BE SEIZED, or into which they may be taken and proceedings FIRST INSTITUTED."

Martha, butbutbut, as was shown here a few days ago, the act of congress establishing the internal revenue of the district, was repealed!

So, there is no law or code to refuse to obey -- it's a dead law; and, lest someone say "they amended it" - no amendment can revive a repealed law!

No, I HAVE no duty to obey a repealed law and there is no liability to owing income taxes (SubTitle A)

Sorry about that, Canadian research is more my specialty ... perhaps I will stick to that.

free_martha

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by idknow

So, i'm lookin at "pro-per-ty" above and I'm thinking that the word appears to have a Latin source, So, in latin it's

pro-per-ti

The same thing can be done with "Estados Unidos"

And remember that the Spanish language also closely related to Latin, so that

if "unidos" is literally parsed as "uni-dos" then that's literally "one-two" in english which doesnt make sense to me immediately.

but, the word "unidos" is pronounced "oo-nee-dos"

Perhaps it's just a case of twisting the pronunciation, or the stems of the word?

aside, "pronunciation" == pronounce + ation

"pro per", "propia persona" == "for oneself" or "one's own"
also, "in pro per" and in greek, the word for "one's own" is idios.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
unidos (unite) - one out of what was twain.

The thing is, I am not seeing how your post was intended to edify. Perhaps clarify?

However, I was alluding to the notion that the 'term' property might intrisincally allude to a "State persona" when wielded by State actors.

Because cos the FBI arrests someone does not mean they did anything unlawful--when you are five watching cops'n robber cartoons you might believe the contrary is always true. Sometimes (if not often) cops are robbers.

Heard an intersesting story that some years ago a reporter at a small newspaper was on his way to place bets for some of his friends and had a wad of cah on him. He stops at a restaurant in New Orleans and makes the mistake of mentioning what he was doing. Three cops overheard him, waylaid him, threw him over an overpass on an interstate to get run over and made off with the cash. Fortunately he did not get run over and he prevailed in a suit against them.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by francis

Heard an intersesting story that some years ago a reporter at a small newspaper was on his way to place bets for some of his friends and had a wad of cah on him. He stops at a restaurant in New Orleans and makes the mistake of mentioning what he was doing. Three cops overheard him, waylaid him, threw him over an overpass on an interstate to get run over and made off with the cash. Fortunately he did not get run over and he prevailed in a suit against them.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
That does not surprise me in the slightest bit.

[SansRecours]

Please apply 12 STAT. 319 to the automobile and insurance.

Show me a complete factual and unbroken line between that statute at large and today's driving (in its broadest sense) statutes, including, but not limited to insurance,licensing, and ownership. It is not in the legislative history of any driver licensing, ownership, or insurance statute of which I have knowledge.

It is conjecture that this statute applies to the topic herein.

However, if it is true, and provable, then the whole suijuris experience is a waste of time. We should be having committees of correspondence, contemplating another Continental Congress, a Declaration of Independence, and an arsenal because the time for bloodshed has long since past.

But then again, most are still concerned about a night or two in the pokey.


SansRecours