Travel Discuss how to reclaim the right to travel freely, public access, etc.


Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Educational & Learning > Travel
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 03-04-2006, 06:07 PM
SansRecours SansRecours is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 93
I'll ask this question again

"The state can force the public TRUST FAMILY-NAME into anything once they have your consent to ACT as a co-trustee/beneficiary to the TRUST. Remember they created it and they OWN it."

Please show me fact, evidence, law, cases supporting this family trust name thing.

"It is game over as everything unto the TRUST is military law and the law of necessity. And as you have volunteered it is voluntary servitude instead of involuntary servitude. And if you don't say no you just said yes."

Please back this statement up with the same.

"They get around the constitution by WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS which are still in effect from Lincoln’s time."

Same here.

I have never seen anyone prevail going into any kind interface with the government reliant upon the presumptions you advance.

I have never seen this presumption advance by any court, any statute (although I see where the war powers people aka "Schroederites" are coming from).
However, all my study of martial law leads me to factually conclude that martial law historically, has never been used over the whole nation. One of those rebellion cases, either Dorr, or Shay, I cannot recall, gets into this matter. Even in the 1861-65 conflict, it was not over the whole of the United States.

While I agree that the state can regulate that which it creates, I can find no conclusive factual and evidentiary precedent attaching birth certificate, ALL CAPS, trust, this alleged account for "x" number of dollars, etc.

Bailey says that what the state cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly. If one has a right, and it is unalienable, why does one waste time and energy studying these convoluted theories? Is it not better to stand on the right than to succumb to the theory?

The way I see it, if you are to advance that there is this trust thing going on, why is there not a statute existing declaring that ALL entering into the (what passes for a) legal sytem MUST absolutely have an attorney, because the statutes and all rules of pleading require attorney representation by legal fiction.

Next, it seems absurd that one would even bother entering into the legal system believeing this to be true.
On what authority could you speak for it or about it?

SansRecours
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:16 PM
mrg's Avatar
mrg mrg is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulltitle
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Sometimes (if not often) cops are robbers.


Funny you should mention this, and I know its off-topic, but I can't resist:

3 More Arrested in Rogue Cop Robberies

By Scott Glover and Matt Lait, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


Nineteen people, including five former police officers, have been criminally charged in connection with a string of daring and sometimes violent robberies in Southern California, which were staged to look like law enforcement raids as the suspects used police badges and equipment to fool victims, federal authorities said Thursday.

Though the scope of the nearly five-year investigation was first made public in 2004, new details emerged with the arrests this week of a California prison guard - taken into custody Thursday - and of former Los Angeles and Long Beach police officers. Three other suspects remain at large, authorities said.


The group committed more than 20 robberies and burglaries in Los Angeles and neighboring communities over a span of 2 1/2 years until its ringleader, a Los Angeles police officer, was arrested in 2001 on drug charges.

"What makes this case so disturbing is that the defendants include five sworn law enforcement officers who abused their badges, their uniforms and their oaths of office to engage in criminal conduct under the pretense of conducting real police operations," said Thomas O'Brien, head of the criminal division for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. "While this story sounds like a script from 'The Shield' or 'Training Day,' it actually happened."

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton focused his comments on the three former LAPD officers who allegedly were part of the crew. The officers, he said, "are traitors to the badge that the men and women of this department so proudly wear, traitors to their fellow officers and, most importantly, traitors to the public."

Most of the participants secretly pleaded guilty to their roles in the crime spree, which lasted from January 1999 to June 2001. Their pleas, in which they agreed to cooperate with authorities, had been kept confidential to protect the ongoing investigation.

The mastermind of the criminal enterprise, officials said, was former LAPD Officer Ruben Palomares, 36, a former Golden Gloves boxer who sparred with top-notch fighters such as Oscar De La Hoya and Shane Mosley. His cohorts were friends, co-workers and relatives, authorities said.

One member was a former female boxer who trained with Palomares, they said.

In addition to the five sworn police officers implicated in the ring, at least four other crew members had ties to law enforcement. Two were graduates of a police officer training program at Rio Hondo Community College.

Another worked as a civilian custodial officer at the Garden Grove Police Department and yet another was an LAPD Explorer Scout who sought a job with the department but was turned down.

Authorities said Palomares' crew was highly sophisticated and organized. They wore police uniforms and badges during many of the robberies. They used LAPD squad cars and unmarked police vehicles during some of the heists, court records show.

During the crime spree, they stole more than 700 pounds of marijuana and 50 kilos of cocaine from drug dealers, which they then sold, court papers state. In addition, they stole cars, money, firearms and jewelry. In one particularly bold robbery, crew members identified themselves as police officers as they commandeered television sets from the back of a truck on a street in Montebello, the documents show.

Some incidents turned violent, with victims being kicked and beaten. At least one victim was shot with a stun gun.

According to court papers, the thieves used law enforcement tactics during the robberies. Some crew members were assigned surveillance duties, watching for police and potential witnesses. Other members - dubbed the "entry team" - would burst into locations. Victims often were handcuffed.

"Once inside the target locations, various co-conspirators would assault and beat the occupants to obtain information, search for narcotics, money and other valuable property," the 54-count indictment unsealed Thursday stated.

Authorities arrested three of the remaining suspects this week: Ex-LAPD Officer William Ferguson, 33, and his brother, ex-Long Beach Police Officer Joseph Ferguson, 31, who were both arrested Wednesday, and Rodrigo Duran, 35, a former Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy and now a state prison guard.

The federal investigation of the criminal enterprise began on June 8, 2001, when Palomares and four other men were arrested in San Diego after having paid $130,000 to undercover DEA agents for 10 kilos of cocaine.

At the time, authorities searched Palomares' Diamond Bar home and seized 13 firearms - including six unregistered semiautomatic assault rifles, 150 boxes of ammunition and a money-counting machine.

One of the men arrested that day, Alvin Moon, immediately began cooperating with authorities. In addition to the robberies, Moon told authorities that he had witnessed Palomares and another crew member assault a young man after an argument at a restaurant.

Moon alleged that Palomares punched the 23-year-old man several times before Oscar Loaiza fatally stabbed him. Sources close to the investigation said Thursday that they have largely corroborated Moon's account and that the case remains under investigation.

Soon after the San Diego arrest, sources close to the investigation have said, LAPD internal affairs investigators began tailing William Ferguson. Within days, he loaded up his boat and towed it to San Diego, ostensibly to go fishing, the sources said.

Suspicious about the timing, investigators wondered whether Ferguson was planning to dump evidence into the ocean. They tailed him to the dock, but were unable to make arrangements to watch him at sea. State Department of Fish and Game agents searched the boat at the behest of police when it returned to shore, but found nothing.


Feeling the pressure from the joint FBI, LAPD and Long Beach Police Department investigation, other members of Palomares' crew began to cooperate, hoping to minimize their prison time. Two years ago, Palomares - who by then had been sentenced to 15 years in prison on the San Diego drug charges - agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with authorities. Though he faces a potential life sentence, he hopes that his cooperation will result in a reduction.

Two months after Palomares began cooperating, Jesse Moya, 29, another former LAPD officer involved in the crime ring, pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate as well.

The Ferguson brothers have made no such deals. Even before joining the LAPD, records show that William Ferguson had five felony arrests on suspicion of theft and burglary.

While at the LAPD, he was the subject of numerous misconduct complaints, including one stemming from a 1999 on-duty shooting for which he was eventually fired. The city later paid $1.7 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit alleging that the shooting was unjustified and subsequently covered up.

In addition to Palomares, Moya, Duran, Moon, Loaiza and the Ferguson brothers, others charged with crimes were: Armando Contreras-Lopez, 35, of Paramount; Gabriel Loaiza, 30, of Montebello; Michelle Barajas, 38, of Paramount; David Barajas, 32, of Paramount; Jessica Treat, 31, of Whittier; Jesus Estrada Dominguez, 40; Pablo Estrada, 29, of La Puente; Manuel Hernandez, 25, of Pico Rivera; Manuel Godinez Martinez, 25; Juan Mendoza, 29, of Muscoy in San Bernardino County; Steve Quintero, 30, of Montebello; and Geronimo Sevilla, 32, of Whittier.

Oscar Loaiza, Michelle Barajas and Contreras-Lopez are fugitives, authorities said. Attorneys representing those charged either did not return calls or could not be immediately reached for comment.

For years, Palomares enjoyed an excellent reputation in the LAPD, receiving glowing reviews from his supervisors.

"A leader with a reputation for excellence," one captain wrote in the mid-1990s. "Another year of stellar service," wrote another captain.

The first hint that Palomares may have been a problem officer came from Rafael Perez, the disgraced ex-officer whose allegations of widespread corruption and brutality launched the Rampart scandal in 1999.

During his then-secret debriefings with investigators, Perez said Palomares, who also worked in Rampart, had intimated that he had been involved in a bad shooting in 1998 as well as other misconduct.

"I would look at everything Palomares has done," Perez told investigators, "every arrest that he's made."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:21 PM
free_martha
 
Posts: n/a
Here is the discussion

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

Notice: The footnotes are fully incorporated into this text for Memorandum of Law. The purpose of this trust indenture is to expressly define the parameters of the extant public trust so to avoid assumpsit and inappropriate presumptions of constructive trust. Wherever there is error in the description of the extant public trust, this express trust will find penetrable fault. On the other hand, wherever the description is in coherence with the intent of the trust Creator, this express trust is impenetrable.

Delegation of authority: Constitution of the United States of America c.1789, Article VI any office or public trust under them.

CONTRACT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is acknowledged. Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT, hereinafter referred to as the "Creator," and [first trustee], hereinafter referred to as the "First Trustee," enter into this Contract and Declaration of Trust on the day, month and year hereinafter set forth.
ARTICLE I. THE CONTRACT.
1.01. This document establishes a common law contractual relationship whereby the Trustee(s) agree(s) to accept title to certain property exchanged in Trust for Certificates of Beneficial Interest.
1.02. The Trustee(s), including any agent making appearance, recognizing a fiduciary obligation, agree to manage the Trust property for the Beneficial Certificate Holders
Should more than one Trustee be appointed to manage the affairs of the Trust, the Trust's property shall be held in joint tenancy. Any IMF agent/trustee appointed fiduciary becomes first and foremost obligated to correct the record and accounts in favor of the beneficiary of True Name FAMILY, True Name. Any transfer of funds or property contrary to the benefit of True Name can only be executed after review of this trust indenture by an Article III judiciary and by authorized court order. This stipulation covers employer and broker’s garnishment and alleged liens of any kind.
1.03. The Trust (True Name FAMILY) through its Trustee(s) shall allocate 100 units of beneficial interest in the form of Certificates of Beneficial Interest.
1.04. The Creator by this instrument offers certain property to the Trustee(s).
All private property is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this agreement and incorporated herein by reference.
All real property is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached to this agreement and incorporated herein by reference.
1.05. The First Trustee, by executing this instrument, accepts the terms and conditions of this Trust Indenture. Any IMF trustee/fiduciaries appointed by appearance also accept the terms and conditions of this Trust indenture.
1.06. The First Trustee accepts on behalf of the Trust the property conveyed by the Creator in exchange for Units of Beneficial Interest. The transfer made the subject of this paragraph shall not be characterized as either a gift or a sale.
ARTICLE II. TRUST NAME.
2.01. The name of the Trust shall be: True Name FAMILY
ARTICLE III. TRUST DOMICILE.
3.01. The Trust shall be domiciled as follows:
[trust domicile address]
3.02. The Trust shall be interpreted and construed under the common law of these united States of America .
3.03. The domicile of the Trust may be changed to any other sites deemed wise, prudent and necessary by the Trustee(s).
ARTICLE IV. TRUST CLASSIFICATION.
4.01. The Trust shall not operate as a partnership, association, joint venture, corporation or statutory Trust. It shall be construed, and in fact and in common law is, an irrevocable complex Trust. The framers of the Constitution were careful to limit government’s ability to interfere with such contracts as this on in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.?
4.02. The Creator retains no control over the administration of the Trust and/or the ability to revoke, modify, terminate or change in any manner the Trust document. The Creator has no sub rosa or other arrangement with the Trustee(s) of the Trust that would cause the Trustee(s) to act at the direction of the Creator. The initial intent of the Creator was expressed in 1938 by writing the Introduction to the book The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933, The Year of Crisis. The Trustee(s) shall only act as an independent fiduciary in the best interest of the Beneficial Unit Holders.
4.03 This Trust shall be construed by way of legal principles that guarantee the right of Common Law Contract.
ARTICLE V. TRUST DURATION.
5.01. The Trust shall come into legal existence upon its execution by the creator and First Trustee and shall endure for the duration of the infrastructure begun in 1933 predominantly known as the New Deal. The Trustee(s) shall have the power, by unanimous decision, to terminate the Trust at an earlier date. That is to say if society chooses a different social compact than the New Deal for foundation, this trust will not modify collaterally but will terminate. This express trust as a matter of law supersedes any and all constructive trusts. If such a choice is made uniformly to renovate the general social compact the corpus of this indenture shall be distributed to the holders of the units of Beneficial Interest.
ARTICLE VI. TRUSTEE CAPACITY AND POWERS.
6.01. The Trustee(s) may engage in any type of activity which the Trustee(s) deem in the best interest of the Trust including, but not limited to, buying, selling, borrowing, loaning, pledging, or hypothecating assets, and owning stock or entire charters of corporations, partnerships, associations or other Trusts...


footnote 1 - Disclosed by the de jure 13th Amendment to the Constitution destroyed by burning courthouses and libraries during the War Between the States) any citizen of the United States is a federal employee. This construction stems from the original situation where people were state citizens until elected or appointed to serve as public servants - citizens of the (District) United States corporation. Therefore the named individual is a citizen of the United States to conform to recognition standards for valid trusts only. All appearances will be restricted under Rule E of the F.R.C.P. and restricted only to the claim expressed. Any agent of the bankrupt corporation United States and any agent of the United Nations charter mathematics Bank and World Bank will be appointed by appearance as trustee and appointed full fiduciary responsibility to correct the record accurately.

footnote 2 - Because the American system from its inception presupposed and sought to maintain a society based on personal liberty, on private ownership of property and on reasonable private profit from each man’s labor or capital, the New Deal would insist on all three factors. But because the American system visualized protection of the individual against the misuse of private economic power, the New Deal would insist on curbing such power. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 5 of the Introduction written by Franklin Delano in 1938.

footnote 3 - Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-06-2006, 10:58 PM
David Merrill's Avatar
David Merrill David Merrill is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado.
Posts: 6,323
Quote:
I have never seen this presumption advance by any court, any statute (although I see where the war powers people aka "Schroederites" are coming from).
However, all my study of martial law leads me to factually conclude that martial law historically, has never been used over the whole nation. One of those rebellion cases, either Dorr, or Shay, I cannot recall, gets into this matter. Even in the 1861-65 conflict, it was not over the whole of the United States.



From my bookshelf:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-07-2006, 05:20 AM
free_martha
 
Posts: n/a
A premier example of a implied trust

A premier example of a implied trust is in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Ch. 1, part 1, states: "Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses a juridical person. It is therefore a trust as it has been split into two parts, 1) human being 2) juridical person.

No particular language is required to create a trust; nor is any disclosure mandatory that a trust has been created. The only way a trust can be recognized is by the resulting relationships, all of which when observed, such as the ‘human being’ and the ‘juridical person’.

This can compel onerous co-trustee duties and obligations upon men and women. The government can easily use ‘semi-invisible’ or ‘implied’ trusts to change anyone’s status from freemen to citizen-subject-slave so unalienable rights are reduced to mere privileges and benefits.

To put it more simply - did a plantation slave ever pay the ‘master’ for his own upkeep? No, the ‘upkeep’ of the ‘slave’ is the full responsibility of the master, the ‘owner’ of the slaves.


“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State [INVISIBLE TRUST]; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of government [TRUSTEE], i.e. law amounting to mere user [BENEFICIARY]; and that use must be in accordance with and subordinate to the necessities of the State” [necessity knows no law; necessity laughs at the fetters of law] Senate Resolution #62 from April 1933
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-07-2006, 06:51 AM
David Merrill's Avatar
David Merrill David Merrill is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado.
Posts: 6,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by free_martha
A premier example of a implied trust is in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Ch. 1, part 1, states: "Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses a juridical person. It is therefore a trust as it has been split into two parts, 1) human being 2) juridical person.

No particular language is required to create a trust; nor is any disclosure mandatory that a trust has been created. The only way a trust can be recognized is by the resulting relationships, all of which when observed, such as the ‘human being’ and the ‘juridical person’.

This can compel onerous co-trustee duties and obligations upon men and women. The government can easily use ‘semi-invisible’ or ‘implied’ trusts to change anyone’s status from freemen to citizen-subject-slave so unalienable rights are reduced to mere privileges and benefits.

To put it more simply - did a plantation slave ever pay the ‘master’ for his own upkeep? No, the ‘upkeep’ of the ‘slave’ is the full responsibility of the master, the ‘owner’ of the slaves.


“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State [INVISIBLE TRUST]; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of government [TRUSTEE], i.e. law amounting to mere user [BENEFICIARY]; and that use must be in accordance with and subordinate to the necessities of the State” [necessity knows no law; necessity laughs at the fetters of law] Senate Resolution #62 from April 1933

Thus the emancipation developed sharecropping; the new trust indenture. Kind of interesting how many white people have constructed the same trust (under the Fourteenth Amendment), giving up allodium and making land patent difficult to impossible.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Vining on title.jpg (93.9 KB, 25 views)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:10 AM
Shoonra Shoonra is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,745
I am very curious about this "Senate Resolution 62". Is its full text on the internet? Where is it printed in Statutes at Large? Has it ever been mentioned in a court decision?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:58 AM
fulltitle's Avatar
fulltitle fulltitle is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: kingdom of heaven
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansRecours
...why is there not a statute existing declaring that ALL entering into the (what passes for a) legal sytem MUST absolutely have an attorney, because the statutes and all rules of pleading require attorney representation by legal fiction....
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
There is a presumption in that system that you *are not* without an attorney by virtue of your being a member of a municipality.

A trust being represented by a trustee or fiduciary is not looked upon in that system in the same manner as that of a corporation being represented by a director.
__________________
All rights reserved. No Liability Assumed. No Value Assured. Without Recourse. Private. Not for hire.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-07-2006, 09:05 AM
fulltitle's Avatar
fulltitle fulltitle is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: kingdom of heaven
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by free_martha
"Every human being has...
'human being' may only be the 'person'.

Quote:
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State [INVISIBLE TRUST]; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of government [TRUSTEE], i.e. law amounting to mere user [BENEFICIARY]; and that use must be in accordance with and subordinate to the necessities of the State” [necessity knows no law; necessity laughs at the fetters of law] Senate Resolution #62 from April 1933
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.
__________________
All rights reserved. No Liability Assumed. No Value Assured. Without Recourse. Private. Not for hire.

Last edited by fulltitle : 03-07-2006 at 09:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-07-2006, 11:00 AM
idknow idknow is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansRecours
[cut]
...why is there not a statute existing declaring that ALL entering into the (what passes for a) legal sytem MUST absolutely have an attorney,

[cut]

[cut]
SansRecours

I dont recall where, but I have READ a court rule which required that non-fleshy
corporations (my word) were required to have BAR-member representation in court!

It's not in Pennsylvania court rules; it might be in New Jersey's.
I just don't recall.
__________________
I claim ownership of and accept responsibility for every word I have written; I cannot claim ownership for any quotes I have made, being the words of whomever I quoted, to whom I say `thank you'.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Privatizing your car rushpat Travel 102 05-16-2006 01:30 PM
The Exempt Elite Smart-Aleck Misc. Discussion 1 04-19-2006 07:54 PM
Private Insurance Company from Cornforth Video KaosTheory Travel 7 08-14-2004 10:26 AM
From The Archives SKYGZR Taxation 0 07-10-2004 03:20 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2008 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer