Drivers license?

[citizensoldier]

Codee,

My response to you was not an attack - it was simply an inquiry for you to prove what you contend. There are too many Americans buying into the hearsay and half-truths that are rampant in the "patriot" and tax protestor movements. If what you say is based in law, you should be able to point it out.
You are incorrect with the assertion the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Code is law - it is not. First, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a private corporation created in the 1960s - how can a private corporation create law? Second, the state of California (Republic) does not create law. In a Constitutional Republic, the government is controlled by law - it cannot control law. The State of CALIFORNIA Code is only a collection of contractual terms stipulated upon anyone entering into contracts with said corporation. The same with the state of California; however, the state is not a corporation, but a Trust created for the benefit of We the People (the Sovereigns). Statutes are controlled by regulations, the Constitution, and the law.
As I said before, you did not create either the STATE OF CALIFORNIA or the state of California - the first was created by legislative act under authority of the state legislature in the 1960s while the second was created by the Congress of the United State of America through the state Enabling Act. I am unsure of what court you are referencing; however, no court in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA or the state of California were created by you.
Back to your assertion, please elaborate on your basis you are not under their jurisdiction.

[Codee]

sorry, please remove this if you can

Originally Posted by scooterdog

If you look threw my posts, I have taken two long years to do my own "Travel Papers".

What are your papers based on, and have they been effective?

Henry Franklin

[Codee]

I may have come off as too definsive. I am sorry if this was the case. I appreciate all that is done here on this site.
I will argue against you the best that I can, because it will make us stronger.
AGREED: "codes" are not law. However often carry force and effect of law. Codes are codified statutes to be used ultimitly as an index for statutes.

NOT AGREED TO:"The State of CALIFORNIA Code is only a collection of contractual terms stipulated upon anyone entering into contracts with said corporation." in cojunction with "the STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a private corporation created in the 1960s " and "The State of CALIFORNIA Code is only a collection of contractual terms stipulated upon anyone entering into contracts with said corporation. "

If the State of CALIFORNIA was created in the 60's and all caodes are contractuall relations with said corporation. Then what were the codes before the creation of the said corporation. If I understand correctly there was no corporation to contract with in the 1950's. How then are there "contracts with said corporation" How does a code from the 1800's fit into this structure of logic? Example:
C.C.C.P. section 2. "This Code takes effect at twelve o'clock noon, on the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-three."

Also statutes are not controlled by "regulations" unless those regulations be "constitutional."

Also that the "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" was created by a legislative act under the authority of the legilature. This would make CALIFORNIA not a soverign but a mere agency which I posses jurisdiction/control over. Which I/We the people created.

C.G.C. 11120. "...The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

Also when the state contracts with you the state loses soverign imunity and other aspects of the soverignity as well. This also puts them on par with my jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held:
"It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many states of this Union who have an interest in banks, are not suable even in their own courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The state of Georgia, by giving to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act.
The government of the Union held shares in the old Bank of the United States; but the privileges of the government were not imported by that circumstance to the bank. The United States was not a party to suits brought by or against the bank in the sense of the constitution. So with respect to the present bank. Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter."
The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.

[Codee]

Keeping in mind that infractions are not crimes, is there any law which says the state can punish me for it? Take a look at the following codes and please tell me if you know of the same for civil violations. These codes are under the Title "Rights over persons."



200. The State has the rights prescribed in this article over persons within its limits, to be exercised in the cases and in the manner provided by law.


201. The State may punish for crime.

202. The state may imprison or confine for the protection of the public peace or health or of individual life or safety.

203. The State may establish custody and restraint of:
(a) Mentally ill persons, insane persons, chronic inebriates, and other persons of unsound mind.
(b) Paupers for the purposes of their maintenance.
(c) Minors for the purposes of their education, reformation, and maintenance.


204. The State may require services of persons, with or without compensation: In military duty; in jury duty; as witnesses; as town officers; in highway labor; in maintaining the public peace; in enforcing the service of process; in protecting life and property from fire, pestilence, wreck, and flood; and in other cases provided by statute.

[Codee]

Sorry again, I am not sure why it is double posting my stuff

[scooterdog]

Ask the court if it is criminal or civil. I would think for an Infraction, it is civil. When you look threw your states constitution, you have A RIGHT to face your accuser.

If there was no injured party who signed a complaint, it would be basically a civil action the city/county/state is going after you for.

Look in your state, and see if the "State" can sue, I wouldn't think they could. If no one was injured, why are you paying the state?

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Codee

AGREED: "codes" are not law. However often carry force and effect of law. Codes are codified statutes to be used ultimitly as an index for statutes (statutes also not being law)

They carry the force and effect of law no different than the terms of a contractual agreement between two human beings, two corporations, a corporation and a trust, etc... If I offer to sell a car for 25,000 FRNs and you agree to my terms to purchase the car, then you are bound by law to pay the 25,000 FRNs. Should you not, I have both tort and civil remedies at my disposal to enforce the agreement.

If the State of CALIFORNIA was created in the 60's and all caodes are contractuall relations with said corporation. Then what were the codes before the creation of the said corporation. If I understand correctly there was no corporation to contract with in the 1950's. How then are there "contracts with said corporation" How does a code from the 1800's fit into this structure of logic? Example:
C.C.C.P. section 2. "This Code takes effect at twelve o'clock noon, on the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-three."

The codes you are referring in this thread pertain to the Corp State of California, which is a corporation created during the 1960s. The codes you seem to have a hard time reconciling belong to the state of California, which is a trust created to represent the sovereign citizens of California. Can a trust not create codes (contractual terms) that apply to those who interact and fall under the jurisdiction of its lawfully delegated powers? Sure.

Also statutes are not controlled by "regulations" unless those regulations be "constitutional."

All of the statutes we are discussing, the Corp State of California's, are controlled by implementing regulations. Both the statutes and controlling regulations are governed by the higher authority Corp State constitution. Furthermore, the Corp State constitution is governed by foundational law of the United States of America.
I am unsure of what your point is with your above response - I clearly indicated as much in my previous response.

Also that the "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" was created by a legislative act under the authority of the legilature. This would make CALIFORNIA not a soverign but a mere agency which I posses jurisdiction/control over. Which I/We the people created.

Your contention is baseless and complete foolishness.
The only "control" one has over the Corp State of California, if not an elected official for said corp, is the right to vote as a member of the democracy it supports. No different than the "control" a shareholder has in the operations and decisions for IBM. However, obtaining the "privilege" of being a member of its democracy requires you to submit to its jurisdiction as a 14th amendment citizen.

C.G.C. 11120. "...The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

As shown above, you and the people didn't create the private corporation.

Also when the state contracts with you the state loses soverign imunity and other aspects of the soverignity as well. This also puts them on par with my jurisdiction.

Sure - I never said it has sovereign immunity - why do you think the Corp State can sue and be sued. Your statement above and the court cite show the nature of the Corp State.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Codee

Keeping in mind that infractions are not crimes, is there any law which says the state can punish me for it? Take a look at the following codes and please tell me if you know of the same for civil violations. These codes are under the Title "Rights over persons."

You will find the answer to your question by reviewing what constitutes "persons" in the statute you posted. Then reconcile it with the implementing regulations, the Corp State constitution, and foundational law.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by scooterdog

Ask the court if it is criminal or civil. I would think for an Infraction, it is civil. When you look threw your states constitution, you have A RIGHT to face your accuser.

If there was no injured party who signed a complaint, it would be basically a civil action the city/county/state is going after you for.

Look in your state, and see if the "State" can sue, I wouldn't think they could. If no one was injured, why are you paying the state?

The Corp States and Corp US can be parties in actions under the "parens patria" doctrine - as an interested party, they have standing in court.