Drivers license?

[Codee]

The people continually create the state they exist in. I guess I need you to explain to me why you do not concider me and my fellows the creator of state agencies when the Government code says We did. Can you explain what this section means then?

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

[Codee]

"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."

I posted a code. And this is what person means in my state at least.

C.G.C. section 240. "The people, as a political body, consist of:
(a) Citizens who are electors.
(b) Citizens not electors."

And Citizens are:
C.G.C. section 241. "The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.

So, if you want to be "one of the people", have constitutional guaranties, enjoy due process, confront your accuser, or anything else in the state or fed consitution, YOU NEED TO BE A PERSON. Otherwise you are free to defend yourself without the state to aid you at all (just like the revolutionists did.)

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Codee

The people continually create the state they exist in. I guess I need you to explain to me why you do not concider me and my fellows the creator of state agencies when the Government code says We did. Can you explain what this section means then?

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

The section of code you posted is out of context in an effort to support your erroneous assertion. The section above is taken from the State of California Code outlining meetings for State agencies. Being allowed to attend meetings doesn't bestow you with any authority.

You and the other Citizens of the State of California do not create anything - your representatives elected by the "collective" will of the people do. Just because government authority derives from the consent of the governed doesn't mean the governed have such authority.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Codee

I posted a code. And this is what person means in my state at least.

C.G.C. section 240. "The people, as a political body, consist of:
(a) Citizens who are electors.
(b) Citizens not electors."

And Citizens are:
C.G.C. section 241. "The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.

So, if you want to be "one of the people", have constitutional guaranties, enjoy due process, confront your accuser, or anything else in the state or fed consitution, YOU NEED TO BE A PERSON. Otherwise you are free to defend yourself without the state to aid you at all (just like the revolutionists did.)

Its apparent you do not understand what category of "Person" is being addressed in the above code. You may find the Dredd Scott case enlightening as well as researching the changes brought on by the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not one of the PERSONS being discussed above.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

The section of code you posted is out of context in an effort to support your erroneous assertion. The section above is taken from the State of California Code outlining meetings for State agencies. Being allowed to attend meetings doesn't bestow you with any authority.

How did you come to that conclusion citizensoldier?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/gov_..._contents.html

Chapter 2 is titled "People of The State"
Article 1 (where section 240 is located) is "General"

Nowhere in sections 240-245 is there any reference to meetings. Nowhere in Article 2 of Chapter 2 are there any references to meetings.

Chapter 2 consists only of Article 1 and Article 2.

Codee is on target when he stated the following

Originally Posted by Codee

So, if you want to be "one of the people", have constitutional guaranties, enjoy due process, confront your accuser, or anything else in the state or fed consitution, YOU NEED TO BE A PERSON.

In the vast majority of instances, any reference to a person in statutes or code is reference to a juristic entity. A legislatively defined fiction as illustrated in Chapter 2.

Originally Posted by Codee

Otherwise you are free to defend yourself without the state to aid you at all (just like the revolutionists did.)

And, if I may add, free from interference/intrusion in your personal affairs (right to travel being one) by third parties unless invited or through acts of trespass upon another.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Chapter 2 is titled "People of The State"
Article 1 (where section 240 is located) is "General"

Nowhere in sections 240-245 is there any reference to meetings. Nowhere in Article 2 of Chapter 2 are there any references to meetings.

I wasn't talking about Chapter 2 in my response - 11120 is under State Agencies. However, Chapter 2 is only talking about 14th amendment Citizens as well - not citizens of the California Republic.

Codee is on target when he stated the following:
Originally Posted by Codee
So, if you want to be "one of the people", have constitutional guaranties, enjoy due process, confront your accuser, or anything else in the state or fed consitution, YOU NEED TO BE A PERSON.

I am not a 14th amendment Citizen nor do I have constitutional guarantees. I enjoy rights endowed by my Creator, based in foundational law. My sovereignty is beyond government or Corp authority unless I consent to such. Liberty is my watch word, which the law protects above all.

I do not begrudge Codee, yourself, or anyone else wishing to be "one of the people" constituting the democracy of the State of California. However, you cannot espouse you have a right to travel unregulated on the public roads in said State when you plainly testify you are bound under its authority by being one of its Citizens.

In the vast majority of instances, any reference to a person in statutes or code is reference to a juristic entity. A legislatively defined fiction as illustrated in Chapter 2.

One cannot make such a sweeping statement. Unless expressly defined in the statute or required under controlling regulation, constitution, or law to the contrary, the common meaning of a word is used.

And, if I may add, free from interference/intrusion in your personal affairs (right to travel being one) by third parties unless invited or through acts of trespass upon another.

Not so, as I explained above. You cannot be a member of the democracy and exclude yourself from the will of the people.

[mnchicago]

Go citizensoldier, go!

[RevokeTheTrust]

I remember that day to hold it. None were alloud to use any vessel owned by Disneyland, without approval from a Driver test and receiving their Driver License. I attended, completed, and saved that card without endorsing it. I saved the card all this time, until a color high-defenition scanner was available to copy it. Mind you, the Driver test involved moving an automobile on a rail.

Can a man indirectly move the Driver to stop the car or increase gas to the combustion engine? Can a man reason or yield to the right of way and at-least signal the international distress (hands in the air)? If you are sound enough to comprehend that, then you are hereby conferred the Disneyland AUTOPIA Official Driver License by my agency. Provided is an attachment to this post. Every vessel owned by Disneyland, are conferred upon whomever posess their qualified Driver.

Try to align a thin cardboard canvas to a print of both front and rear, adverse of two sides of a small rectangular scrip. This is legitimate; Disneyland appreciates competant patrons to move Disney-loaned vessels out of harms way, if ever an encounter needs a spontaneous unregistered comander for their benefice. On the face of the ODL, write the trusted names in legislative triplette formation and the beneficiary as the middle initial (vessel HERALDRY), and for the signature prepend a monetary reservation followed with the vessel nature in motion or just write true name(tm) before VESSEL.

M. Gregory Thomas

PS: Some would argue on the rear of the Disneyland AUTOPIA Official Driver License on what descriptions for the parcel of property accompanying the Driver in the chassis of the vessel. For Gender, I would strike-through for neuter, Height would be the length of one's foot, Hair would accord to one's appearance as Special/Grantor or Loki/Tyre/Christ of YHVH, Weight as to the handicap/load/inertia when idle or zero(0), and Eyes for the trustee-trustee in two witness that are to engauge the value of the License, and DOB for when the matter was borne to completion or "available" or "without delay". To that, it would be true and complete and correct and not-misleading the value afforded to a Driver in the safe-keeping of one's property.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

I wasn't talking about Chapter 2 in my response - 11120 is under State Agencies. However, Chapter 2 is only talking about 14th amendment Citizens as well - not citizens of the California Republic.

OK, got that. Crosstalk on my part.

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

I am not a 14th amendment Citizen nor do I have constitutional guarantees. I enjoy rights endowed by my Creator, based in foundational law. My sovereignty is beyond government or Corp authority unless I consent to such. Liberty is my watch word, which the law protects above all.

I do not begrudge Codee, yourself, or anyone else wishing to be "one of the people" constituting the democracy of the State of California. However, you cannot espouse you have a right to travel unregulated on the public roads in said State when you plainly testify you are bound under its authority by being one of its Citizens.

One cannot make such a sweeping statement. Unless expressly defined in the statute or required under controlling regulation, constitution, or law to the contrary, the common meaning of a word is used.

It is an appropriate statement. Specific example is a case in point; did you follow through with all the definitions? Citizen to person. Person to "residing" and within the State? State to jurisdiction? A complex web of definitions upon definitions which must be followed to understand the definition and subject of the statute.

I stand behind that sweeping statement. The code and statutes, in the majority of instances, have their own definitions. This is especially true concerning "person" subject matter. As can be illustrated with your 14th Amendment Citizen reference. A search of each chapter of the US Code for all occurances of "person" and "definition" and then "natural person" and "definition" yields this to be true. This is not a trivial task.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

And, if I may add, free from interference/intrusion in your personal affairs (right to travel being one) by third parties unless invited or through acts of trespass upon another.

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

Not so, as I explained above. You cannot be a member of the democracy and exclude yourself from the will of the people.

I'm not sure Codee is claiming to be a member. I most certainly do not claim to be. Is he claiming to be one according to the code? It appears to me, in Codee's sentence above, he is stating that someone by right is not required to be a PERSON (aren't you claiming someone has the right not to be a 14th Amendment Citizen?). But I'll let him make that statement.

I've got some questions for both you and Codee.

Is it agreed or not that the State of California is a corporate fiction? IF a corporate fiction, when did it come into existance? Does it still exist today? What relationship does a flesh and blood human have with the State of California if one is born in the State? Who is the sovereign? If a flesh and blood human wants to travel in the state, is a driver's license required? Does it change one's status?

Is it agreed or not that there is a California Republic? IF a corporate fiction, when did it come into existance? Does it still exist today? What relationship does one have with the California Republic? Who is the sovereign? If a flesh and blood human wants to travel in the Republic, is a driver's license required? Does it change one's status?

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I'm not sure Codee is claiming to be a member. I most certainly do not claim to be. Is he claiming to be one according to the code? It appears to me, in Codee's sentence above, he is stating that someone by right is not required to be a PERSON (aren't you claiming someone has the right not to be a 14th Amendment Citizen?). But I'll let him make that statement.

If someone is going to use the Corp State statutes to indicate who they are, then yes - they are claiming to be a member of the democracy. If that is not Codee's position, then the Corp State codes should not be used to indicate capacity.

Is it agreed or not that the State of California is a corporate fiction? IF a corporate fiction, when did it come into existance? Does it still exist today? What relationship does a flesh and blood human have with the State of California if one is born in the State? Who is the sovereign? If a flesh and blood human wants to travel in the state, is a driver's license required? Does it change one's status?

A corporation is not a fiction - it is real. It may be artificial, but real nonetheless. Depending on the capacity the human is acting in relation to the State and based on any obligations that may attach in such relationship, the human may be required to provide consciousness and physical capacity to obtain and carry the license. If the human is acting in a general partnership capacity with an artificial entity, then the human is equally liable for any duties and/or obligations with the artificial entity.

Is it agreed or not that there is a California Republic? IF a corporate fiction, when did it come into existance? Does it still exist today? What relationship does one have with the California Republic? Who is the sovereign? If a flesh and blood human wants to travel in the Republic, is a driver's license required? Does it change one's status?

It is a trust, exists today, and artificial, yet real. It does not have the authority to regulate the Rights of Man without due process of law. It recognizes the sovereignty of Man and only exists to preserve those rights and serve the citizens of the state under the authority delegated to it.