Insurance & the Private Automobile

[Shoonra]

It is required everywhere that corporate or collective parties (e.g., corporations, unincorporated associations, charities, trusts, class actions, etc.) must be represented by one or more real lawyers. Amateurs appearing pro se are allowed to screw up only their own cases, not the cases of any other person (including family members).

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It is required everywhere that corporate or collective parties (e.g., corporations, unincorporated associations, charities, trusts, class actions, etc.) must be represented by one or more real lawyers. Amateurs appearing pro se are allowed to screw up only their own cases, not the cases of any other person (including family members).

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
That kind of lan-goo-ag is a perfect example of why one ought to be mindful of hidden modifiers before words. When your adversary asks you "are you an individual?" he might be asking you "are you a unit of *his* Estate". They are not asking if you are an individual or a singular human in nature or a foreign estate. If they were asking you if you were a foreigner might they have instead asked something like unto: "Are you a you a foreign individual?"

Therefore, when State of Oz says "trust" it likely means trusts formed under the statutes of the State of Oz (i.e. non-foreign trusts). When it means elsewise, it would say "foreign trust".

So here we have the word "everywhere" wielded. And we can use just a little bit of logic: since an attorney is not required in my court, then it is not required in my notion of everywhere. Now, one way that this statement: "It is required everywhere that corporate or collective parties (e.g., corporations, unincorporated associations, charities, trusts, class actions, etc.) must be represented by one or more real lawyers."--can be made true is to render it only as being spoken from within a system where everywhere in that System is 'everywhere' to that system and then it might hold true that such is required 'everywhere' in the scope of that in the eState or eStates--even if thats just an area the size of a old-fashioned water closet.

Since an attorney is not required in Our court, then she/he can only be speaking in and from and a Realm where it holds true.

Amateurs appearing pro se are allowed to screw up only their own cases, not the cases of any other person (including family members).

In some cases perhaps the only other alternative for some maybe seem to be to allow perfect lying strangers to screw (1404, from M.Fr. escroue) one and ones family too out of everything the screwer can a-turn. Foreplay vs. rough? Which would you choose?

See also: attorn c.1303, from O.Fr. aturne "(one) appointed," pp. of aturner "to decree, assign, appoint," from a- "to" + turner "turn," from L. tornare

turn (v.) late O.E. turnian "to rotate, revolve," in part also from O.Fr. torner "to turn," both from L. tornare "turn on a lathe," from tornus "lathe," from Gk. tornos "lathe, tool for drawing circles," from PIE base *ter- "to rub, rub by turning, turn, twist" (see throw).

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

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.

Is there a consensus of the Members to mute FullTitle for a minute for writing a terrible double-negative?! LOL

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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?

Shoonra, such a query is ambiguous - please provide more details of what you're searching for.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It is required everywhere that corporate or collective parties (e.g., corporations, unincorporated associations, charities, trusts, class actions, etc.) must be represented by one or more real lawyers. Amateurs appearing pro se are allowed to screw up only their own cases, not the cases of any other person (including family members).

;p; - well vernacularised!

[idknow]

great post.

years ago, I had some forgotten need to seek out a liar at that time. At the beginning of our chat, he began asking me all sorts of personal questions that liars want to ask - especially "what's your ssn?".

At that moment, stunned because it was so unexpected, I politely replied, "there is no need for that."

a Years later, i was reminded of that encounter and became down-right furious at the gall and nerve of that liar to treat me the way he did.

In hind sight, I always think of better, verbose and vociferously loud responses that I want to say to him.

even to this day now!

I'M NOT YOUR SLAVE AND IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It is required everywhere that corporate or collective parties (e.g., corporations, unincorporated associations, charities, trusts, class actions, etc.) must be represented by one or more real lawyers. Amateurs appearing pro se are allowed to screw up only their own cases, not the cases of any other person (including family members).

but the rule is not explicitly posted in the rules of all courts afaik.

[SansRecours]

I am starting a new legal term:

Its the opposite of "legalese." I am going to call it "convolusionism"

CONVOLUSIONISM
The practice and/or procedure of ignoring the obvious, and proceeding upon a presumption, of such twisted and convoluted verbiage, that no two people can agree with, or understand the point.

What HUGE amounts of baggage y'all carry around.

To claim as legal knowledge that which one cannot support by fact or evidence is useless legal knowledge, if it is knowledge at all.

I will type this real slow- CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES.

We are dealing with the administrative application of law normally reserved to state regulated entitites, to a distinct class of living souls outside of that administrative scope.

Y'all are trying to adapt presumptions (TRUST FAMILY NAME, War and Emergency Powers) or, more likely, someone else's presumptions, to any given state of things. All these presumptions have as their core issue the character of the parties.

Would someone of YOUR nature and character be required to do or forbear from doing any thing? Would someone of THEIR nature and character be required to do, or forbear from doing the same?

Does the jurisdiction having this alleged authority to hear and determine, have the same authority to compel YOU into its jurisdiction when it proceeds upon hearsay, and not fact, and no real parties plaintiff?

Does the state, have the authority to do indirectly, by presumption of a statute, that which it cannot do directly? The answer is that the state cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.

The state cannot cut your jugular vein (declaring an emergency) then apply butterfly bandages (the legislation) to SLOW the blood flow and perpetuate the emergency. It never had that authority. If I do not have it and YOU do not have it, then pray tell from whence did the state get it??????

Are YOU obliged to, and does the jurisdiction have the authority to compel you into aiding the state in obtaining a conviction against YOU?

My questions remain still unanswered: I guess I'll answer them:

Can the state force anyone [more particularly YOU] into making a contract with a third party? Maybe, If one is a creation of the state. Can it force me personally? NO

Can you say involuntary servitude, peonage, and Bailey v.Alabama 219 US 219?? YES that's what it would be if the state forced me into a contract relationship with a third party.

Because there exists, I believe, in every state the statute compelling liability insurance, and because there exists a statute compelling liability insurance upon every officer/agent on the highway, can we agree that the presumption exists that ALL on the road are mere insurable interests (creatures of contract)? You should be agreeing with me here.

Where is the constitution in all this? It's still there, but not in that lower inferior court jurisdiction.

I'll stop before I "convoluse" myself.

SansRecours

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."

[mrg]

http://www.justia.us/us/219/219/case.html