Drivers license?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I stand corrected. In my haste I improperly asked the questions in terms of corporate fiction instead of legal fiction.

I don't disagree with anything stated (although expanding on the trust arrangement between the State and Republic may be proper for another thread if not already covered).

Both State and Republic entities discussed are body politics, but the relationships and sovereignty of each with their respective "persons" are quite different.

As to the relationship Codee sees between a person, the code and licensing requirements, I will leave that for him to continue on his point before I jumped in.

[Codee]

Citizen Soldier, since you have told me how it is important to guard against heresay you have not cited one authority for any position you hold. I agree with many of them but everything you wrote is "heresay" My position is this.
1) There can be no redefining words and phrases with "words of art" or otherwise when those words appear in the original text of the constitution. IE person has meant the same thing as always. It does not nessisarily include "man" or "Woman" and definitly excludes the soverign (unless specifically defined including; This goes back to the king of England) California has chosen to make its people only out of persons. If you don't want to be person then you cannot be a Citizen, take it or leave it! No one is making you be a citizen.

2) If you elect to not be a corporate member Citizen then the state owes you nothing. Do not rely on their laws (By the way it was the states which adopted common law and not all states did. This means the state brought this to you too, so get rid of it), do not expect protection from ther constitutions, do not expect ANY LIMITATION of force when the state deals with you as a hostile enemy (Like the King did to the revolutionists long ago), Do not expect the courts to be available to you when you want to complain that someone took advantage of you or defrauded you. Do not assume that you have any right to travel on PRIVATE easements held for public use. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS THIS: When someone attempts to injure you you may hit them in their face and hope that solves it. If they in turn beat the !@#$ out of you, oh well. If they call the coppers on you, you are even more !@#$'ed. You can also just give your property up to a carjacker meaning to take from you (I doubt the police are going to help find stuff for someone that does not belong to the active government. YOUR dejure GOVERNMENT is unoccupied, as such can offer you nothing. Want to change that, fill the seats of your government. You might need alot of force to do this as in my state they put "no tresspassing" signs up at the lawfull state seat.

3) You keep not noticing that the context does not matter about the Government code. The important part is not why the people insist on being kept informed, it is that they do so to "retain control over the agencies they created" I understand that you don't think you have any part with the state being the way it is and do not want to be "one of the people" and as such you are right when you assert that YOU have no control over the state, because you don't claim responsibility for it.

4) There is so much talk about how the state needs a nexus to interact with "real" people, and how that nexus is a contract. Well what makes you think you can address the state without a nexus. Did "you" sign some contract bringing the state under you jurisdiction (HMMMM like a constitution, probably not) Have you filed this document in to public record? As far as I know the contract is pre-signed and just waiting for you to do an "accepted for value" crud on it or, JUST SIGN AND FILE IT. Without this nexus I would be throwing your arguments based on state's lack of nexus out the window all day long with Roy Bean. By all means who ever said you hgad the right to speak at your trial, or have due process? (Oh yeak, All those laws that have no jurisdiction over me due to lack of nexus! Welcom to Guantamano Bay resort baby!!!)

5) I have read quite a bit and it includes the Dread Scott case. I have not however ever ordered any study guide or "HOW TO BE A SHEEPLE" manual. Mabey your ideas would be better cited if they were your ideas or you bothered to read the reaserched matterial before passing the conclusions on as fact.

6) The 14th amendment is now concidered by the courts to be the only reason why you get ANY protection in the states from the US constitution (including "Due process, right to confront, right to be heard.) Better start getting used to the idea that you got nothing.

7) Do you own land? If not then the state/US has always considered you a person. You are vagrant and a nuisance in their eyes. You were never contimplated in the original text of the constitution and YEP, the Dread Scott case is going to cover this really well.

8) Evidently all these right you claim you have from god is between you and god. When the revolutionaries supposedly won the war they did NOT HAVE THE STREGNTH FROM GOD to presserve their freedom. Why do we know this??? Because they did not rely on their God given rights to protect them, THEY BUILT A CORPORATE GOVERMENT INSTEAD. The country you are dreaming of has never existed and will not till the second comming.

9) As for where I get my "foollish" ideas that I have Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction and Control are synonymous terms. Therfore if I retain control of my state (Which even the legislature admits can happen without safeguards) then I retain the state under my jurisdiction.

Good Luck

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Codee

Citizen Soldier, since you have told me how it is important to guard against heresay you have not cited one authority for any position you hold. I agree with many of them but everything you wrote is "heresay"

I already pointed you to review the Enabling Act for the state of California and the legislative reorganization act during the 1960s. I am not asking you to believe me - look to the law and the facts yourself.

1) There can be no redefining words and phrases with "words of art" or otherwise when those words appear in the original text of the constitution. IE person has meant the same thing as always. It does not nessisarily include "man" or "Woman" and definitly excludes the soverign (unless specifically defined including; This goes back to the king of England) California has chosen to make its people only out of persons. If you don't want to be person then you cannot be a Citizen, take it or leave it! No one is making you be a citizen.

I do not know what you are trying to convey in the above; however, statutes CAN redefine words and phrases to give effect to the intention of the legislature.

2) If you elect to not be a corporate member Citizen then the state owes you nothing. Do not rely on their laws (By the way it was the states which adopted common law and not all states did. This means the state brought this to you too, so get rid of it), do not expect protection from ther constitutions, do not expect ANY LIMITATION of force when the state deals with you as a hostile enemy (Like the King did to the revolutionists long ago), Do not expect the courts to be available to you when you want to complain that someone took advantage of you or defrauded you. Do not assume that you have any right to travel on PRIVATE easements held for public use. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS THIS: When someone attempts to injure you you may hit them in their face and hope that solves it. If they in turn beat the !@#$ out of you, oh well. If they call the coppers on you, you are even more !@#$'ed. You can also just give your property up to a carjacker meaning to take from you (I doubt the police are going to help find stuff for someone that does not belong to the active government. YOUR dejure GOVERNMENT is unoccupied, as such can offer you nothing. Want to change that, fill the seats of your government. You might need alot of force to do this as in my state they put "no tresspassing" signs up at the lawfull state seat.

Again, I do not know what the above attempts to convey. I do not "rely" on "their" laws, as you wrote, because they do not create law anymore than you do - "they" are nothing more than a private corporation created to carry out the business needs of the state of California. "They" are required to obey the law and for the most part, they do uphold the law. Its the people themselves who have failed to understand, apply, and uphold the law.

3) You keep not noticing that the context does not matter about the Government code. The important part is not why the people insist on being kept informed, it is that they do so to "retain control over the agencies they created" I understand that you don't think you have any part with the state being the way it is and do not want to be "one of the people" and as such you are right when you assert that YOU have no control over the state, because you don't claim responsibility for it.

What do you mean I keep noticing the context doesn't matter - it absolutely does. Are you even reading what I wrote or addressing me in your response? Its apparent you are holding tightly to the notion YOU, as part of the "people" mentioned in the code, retain control over the agencies. Can you explain or demonstrate how you control any of the State of California?
Unlike you, I do not claim to control the State or the state. I control myself and defend my God-given Rights. Being sovereign is about controlling onesself and their property.

4) There is so much talk about how the state needs a nexus to interact with "real" people, and how that nexus is a contract. Well what makes you think you can address the state without a nexus. Did "you" sign some contract bringing the state under you jurisdiction (HMMMM like a constitution, probably not) Have you filed this document in to public record? As far as I know the contract is pre-signed and just waiting for you to do an "accepted for value" crud on it or, JUST SIGN AND FILE IT. Without this nexus I would be throwing your arguments based on state's lack of nexus out the window all day long with Roy Bean. By all means who ever said you hgad the right to speak at your trial, or have due process? (Oh yeak, All those laws that have no jurisdiction over me due to lack of nexus! Welcom to Guantamano Bay resort baby!!!)

Being able to address the State or state (I do not know which you are referring) isn't about bringing it under my "jurisdiction". Its actually quite simple - if I wanted to communicate with the State of California, then I would mail, email, call via telephone, or talk directly to one of its representatives.

5) I have read quite a bit and it includes the Dread Scott case. I have not however ever ordered any study guide or "HOW TO BE A SHEEPLE" manual. Mabey your ideas would be better cited if they were your ideas or you bothered to read the reaserched matterial before passing the conclusions on as fact.

Again, I do not understand the above.

6) The 14th amendment is now concidered by the courts to be the only reason why you get ANY protection in the states from the US constitution (including "Due process, right to confront, right to be heard.) Better start getting used to the idea that you got nothing.

For someone who claims they never ordered the "How to be a Sheeple Guide", you sure have all the moves down - ignorance and arrogance. The "courts", whatever you intend for it to mean, have never contended such a thing nor do I rely on a private corporation or, in the case of the original jurisdiction government, my servants to protect my rights - such is my responsibility.

7) Do you own land? If not then the state/US has always considered you a person. You are vagrant and a nuisance in their eyes. You were never contimplated in the original text of the constitution and YEP, the Dread Scott case is going to cover this really well.

I do own my land - do you understand what that means? Furthermore, the sovereigns who do not own their land or do not have land to own are not vagrants - they are still sovereign. Without owning land simply means they are tenants on the land - they still enjoy their Rights. BTW, the Dredd Scott case does not contend any such notion.

8) Evidently all these right you claim you have from god is between you and god. When the revolutionaries supposedly won the war they did NOT HAVE THE STREANTH FROM GOD to presserve their freedom. Why do we know this??? Because they did not rely on their God given rights to protect them, THEY BUILT A CORPORATE GOVERMENT INSTEAD. The country you are dreaming of has never existed and will not till the second comming.

The above is nonsense and contrary to fact. You contend the founders did not receive strength from God to preserve their freedom. It would seem the facts tell another tale:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 , Benjamin Franklin

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention] - Alexander Hamilton

You also contend they did not rely on their God-given rights to protect them - the Declaration of Independence stands as a matter of record against your claim.

9) As for where I get my "foollish" ideas that I have Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction and Control are synonymous terms. Therfore if I retain control of my state (Which even the legislature admits can happen without safeguards) then I retain the state under my jurisdiction.

If you truly "control" your State of California, why are you seeking advice and methods on this site to exercise your "right" to travel without a license - shouldn't they conform to your authority?

[Codee]

I have been contending that I, and fellow men, continually create the state as we exist. I also hold that this gives me control/jurisdiction over the state and for logical reasons I should control what I create because that is the definition of responsibility. CitizenSoldier and a few others have done a good job of denying this possition I hold. I will try to support my first contention here and work on providing credible citation for the latter contention as I have time for it. I also contend that all government are "incorporated terms" and that the states all have corporate governments called "THE STATE OF SUCH AND SUCH". All of this centers around what I believe to be the best decided case ever in America. I believe that Justice James Wilson may be the only man ever concerned wtih the people generally while he was in public office. Quotes are in blue or are in itallics.
Chisholm v. Georgia
2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440.
"... A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...
Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former."
Please notice that Man contrived the state. Also please take non-judicial notice that "to contrive" means:

To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.

To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.

And here we begin to get a real idea of what a state is. After reading the following do we agree that "state" is the "state of mind" of all the men. This is the only logical conclusion I can come to.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this [456] feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men."

And here we are shown that the state is not the government. That the government was created in turn by the state of all free persons is also evident. It also seems that this body of free persons formed the "State." The following is a clearly stated phrase clearly outlining the state as distinct from the government.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker."

That the state did not exist prior to these "persons" forming it. There is also no right to incorporate. Incorporation is so "dangerous" infact that the the states claim sole right to allow this alien evil pressence to exist. Now lets think about how "person" MUST mean corporately veiled. NOT TRUE. If the state, which makes corporations existed AFTER persons did then how could the state create corporations that existed before the state did. I will not try to guess which came first the chicken or the egg. Instead I take the possition that Men can become persons for the purpose of forming a state. These Men now holding the disposition of "person" now create a state and inturn the government of that state, HOWEVER these persons are still soverein Men and did not yeild this supreme power of man to the state by nature of becoming persons. Now some persons aren't men. The state is a Citizen and a person, but not a man. So what the hell does person mean in statute? EVERY PERSON. And what is your remedy? "Not only am I person I am a man. I HAVE SOVEREIN IMMUNITY." Also you have the remedy of disbanding the state by lack of creating it, you do however have to get alot of people on board for this remedy (like in california it would probably be about 50,000,000,000 people,,,just a guess) Unfortunatly there is not much recourse when the entire population creates a ****ty state of well being. Here is the support on this one too. Please notice that this is the one istance where the people have NO REMEDY for anything, and it happens when we all get too dumbed down. Please retrieve your loved ones from public school,,,NOW! These are strong words that follow, please understand that "no remedy" SUCKS!

Ludecke v. Watkins <http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/335/160.html> (1948), 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429.
"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.)

And the following describes what happens when the state starts calling itself "The people of the state of California" instead of "The people of the state of california represented by assembly." IT BECOMES DESPOTIC.

Chisholm v. Georgia
"In despotic governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of government. In each, man is degraded from his prime rank, which he ought to hold in human affairs: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded."

Now if I am soverign and the source of the law couldn't I make any contracts with the state as I want and not diminish my sovereinity. As the source of law it should stand to reason that if I say I can,,, well that I can. I don't get where the government can tell me what is contract law, I sure as hell didn't come up with contract law.
That is how I came to believe that I created the state to serve me.

[Codee]

Here I have posted another case to try to shed light on the difference between a "state" and the "state government." It is the government that is out of control NOT the state the WE CREATE(D) This idea is saddly lost in time and is not muched discussed or addressed in an idnirect manner.
This case also CLEARLY tells why you should/must sue malfesent officers in their "personal" capasity and not the state itself. The state does stand on sogvern immunity HOWEVER it is our immunity it stands on. The State government (its actors/officers) do not posses our immunity.

Poindexter v. Greenhow (1884), 114 U.S. 270, 29 L.Ed 185, 192-193, 5 S.Ct. 903.

(d) [quoting] Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat., 738, ... ["]...In the discussion of such questions the distinction between the government of a State and the State itself is important and should be observed. In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the State, because within the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the State is generally confounded with the State itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The State itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that it is a lawless usurpation. The Constitution of the State is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and State are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a state, as was said in Langford v. U. S., 101 U.S., 341 [Bk. 25, L. ed. 1010], that the maxim that the king can do not wrong has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful.That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name.

[Ice]

Great Post!

Ice

[palani]

scooterdog posted (1st post)

Do you really need a driver license?

The definition of a "license" is:

"A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on Land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is NOT assignable.

Check Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary for definition of a license. There are two headings, contract and international. International is

LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade.

2. The effects of the license are to suspend or relax the rules of war to the extent of the authority given. It is the assumption of a state of peace to the extent of the license. In the country which grants them, licenses to carry on a pacific commerce are stricti juris, as being exceptions to the general rule; though they are not to be construed with pedantic accuracy, nor will every small deviation be held to vitiate the fair effect of them.

When you sign the form to request a license you are asked ' are you a u.s. citizen '. Is a u.s. citizen the same as a citizen of, say, Illinois? Even simpler question, is a citizen of Denmark the same as a citizen of France? The last question is undoubtably false. These are two different countries and affairs between them are handled by international law rather than municipal law. The relationship of Illinois to the United States is also international but there is a compact that exists between the two entities.

That is not to say small disputes might arise, such as, say, the unCivil War. By the way, did that war ever get settled?

And if there is a war going on, and you happen to be a u.s. citizen, are you sure you have a right to travel in the middle of a war zone of a foreign state?

If you examine the above statements closely you will find there are no legal opinions being presented or offered, simply perceptions of an alternative reality.

[Codee]

I find this definition to be helpful. License versus Franchise.


CALIFORNIA JURISPRUDENCE 3rd Ed. (Rev) Part 2 (2002), FRANCHISES FROM GOVERNMENT BODIES
"Although a franchise is a special privilege conferred by government, not every such privilege is a franchise, particularly where the governmental body conferring the privilege is acting in its proprietary, rather than its governmental capacity. A right or privilege that is essential to the performance of the general function or purpose of the grantee, and that can be granted by the sovereignty alone, is a franchise, whereas a right or privilege that is not essential to the general function or purpose of the grantee, and is of a nature that a private party might grant a like right or privilege on his or her property, namely, a temporary or revocable permission to occupy or use a portion of some public ground, is a license and not a franchise. A license is not regarded as property in the ordinary sense and is not a contract, whereas a franchise is both. Moreover, a franchise is assignable, whereas a license, being a personal privilege, ordinarily is not. That a privilege is revocable without cause tends to show that it is a license or permit rather than a franchise, since the concept of franchise, while not requiring continuance in perpetuity, involves some degree of permanence and stablity."