Letter To DMV Rescinding Reg

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

But the rest of us also have the right to protection from dangerous people.

By the crapola definition given in Black's Law Dictionary for license, (form Bouvier's Law Dictionary for contract) how does this make everyone safe? And if this is true whom in government do I sue for breech of contract if I'm involved in an accident, with someone having one of these license? Just how was it that a unalienable right got changed in to a metaphysical BS, privilege? Where is the Constitutional language that said there is to be a fourth branch of government that has any power to make unalienable rights into privileges? Does anybody involved in this de facto fourth branch of government have a clue their acts are TREASON to the American people?

[Codee]

There is not realy a fourth branch of Gov. People just say that when they refer to the Leg and Exec taking the Judicial Powers.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

But the rest of us also have the right to protection from dangerous people.

Judge Roy Bean (JRB), no doubt & I agree with this point. We also have a duty to protect People as well.

It really is unfortinate that there is a pressing need to protect people from those who have made it their life's purpose to "protect and serve". I blame the People ultimatly.

I believe this goal to protect people is the main, if only, valid point behind any resistance to the many people that are 'pro right to travel' & 'anti licencing rights', excercizing their "right to travel" without a licence.

I don't believe all the fears and concerns are valid, yet I do believe that ther are quite a few people, upon initialy hearing about the "right to travel" that do get & maintain the wrong impression & idea about this right.

JRB, would you be willing to admit that any good that it, (the DMV & its agents), does, could be accomplished in a "lawful" manner by the local sherrifs & deputies, as opposed to a "legal" manner via the municipal corporation agents aka "policy officers"? (obviously the policy officers would have to be transisted into the valid law enforcement branch of the state due the the man power factors.)

And further, would you agree that the DMV is ultimatly a huge money making scheem in its current manifestation? Granted it would still have a very valid function because there is still going to be people who are truly "operating motor vehicles". (i.e. taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc.)

JRB, To addess some of what I believe to be your's, shoonra's, and other's main valid points & concerns, (correct me if I am wrong):

I have heard some people try to say that because of such and such [put argument here], they can drive drunk, or ignore other common sense elements of 'safe travel'.

I say this is bull****! I assume that most of the responsable pro-r.t.t. (right to travel) educators would agree with me on this.

Granted, many of the codes, rules, regulations, and revised statutes would be void if looked at objectivly, yet many are also prusuant to very valid common sense & basic safty.

It really is a tangled web.

From my current prespective, unless a viable plan to transist and phase out the obviously corrupt elements of the curent de facto system is laid out, one that the average highschool graduate can comprehend, many people will continue to reject it due to their fear that it will potentialy open too many 'doors' for radical & ultimatly dangerous activity with no real lawful recourse.

Since this is such a tangled web, this must be taken one clear and sure step at a time.

That the 'right to travel' includes using your car on the road (all symantical bs aside) is without doubt. [The case cites from 'pre-merger days' is the only truly valid case law. This mixed law/equity venue is ultimatly void due to the simple fact that, as any highschool student can tell you, the supreme court dosn't have the power to ammend the constitution.]

That 'operating a motor vehicle' (please note legal terms... they are the ones in bold ;-) is specific to commercial activity (taxi, bus driver, etc.) is also without doubt.

You don't need a licence to use your car on the road.

You do need a licence to use your car on the road to drive people around for money a.k.a. operating a motor vehicle.

Readers,

Please make note that I do not really want to discuss:

The pro/con of insurance at this point or the pro/con of any particular codes, rules, regulations, or revised statutes. (without doubt, insurance is a good idea even if you can argue a point about law)

Keeping the main focus on the licence & the registration being void for infringment on a common right & a contract with no proper 'consideration' will succeed.

Trying to bring additinal arguments into scope will cause to much debate at this point.

Both the many assumptions & well written arguments about what codes, rules, regulations and revised statutes are void, or invalidated by terminating the licence and registration would be better discused in a new thread (or further discused in the many other threads on this topic), and then only one main section at a time.

Ultimatly this threads subject matter pertains to "termination of registration". I believe that including the licence into the scope to be in harmony as they are the 2 sides of one coin.

As to the termination of the registration [non-legal advice follows]:

This is a commercial matter.

It is an agreement between the CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION & DMV

I believe it should be done & have done it with a non-negotiable - non-assignable instrument under the UCC.

I believe it should be sent via certified or registered mail, by you, acting as the attorney in fact or agent (other viable methods), for the CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION

To: the Office of the Director of the DOT,MVD (what ever your state calles it)

It should be simple and basicly say in as few words as possible something along these lines:

NON-NEGOTIABLE NON-ASSIGNABLE

Third Party Mailing – Certified Mail # 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

FROM:
COPRORATE LEGAL FICTION
DE FACTO STREET
CITY OF CITY, AZ 85234
UNITED STATES
[Note: the FICTION resides in the corporations jurisdiction, do not try to remove it]

DATE: August 11th 2006 A.D.

To:
STACEY K. STANTON
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION
PO BOX 2100
CITY OF PHOENIX, AZ 85001-2100

Subject: Termination of Contract, STATE OF ARIZONA Vehicle License & Title

Reference:

State: STATE OF ARIZONA
Plate Number: XXXXX
Make: Pontiac
Model: Grand AM
Body Style: 4DSD
Year: 1992
VIN: 00000000000000000

Dear Ms./Mr./Whathave you;

As of August 11th 2006 A.D., the contract between the person[s] CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION & ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION is terminated for cause. The cause being I shall be registering my private automobile outside of the STATE OF ARIZONA'S jurisdiction.

I require both the return of the Manufactures Statement of Origin & a certified document showing that the STATE OF ARIZONA has released all interest in this automobile, a true and absolute title.

The Motor Vehicle Registration, Certificate of Title & License Plates are returned herein & the contract is to be marked Terminated & Closed... never to reopen. Documents acknowledging this action are to be mailed to the above address within thirty (30) days.

NOTICE: Failure of the ARIZONA DEPARTNEMT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT'S records to reflect this termination, within thirty (30) days of this date, will cause CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION a commercial injury & the amount set certain for this injury shall be 50,000.00 U.S. Dollars. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT, NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE.

Tendered,

By:___ _______________________________________

___FirstName MiddleName of the family of FamilyName, attorney in fact

attachments:

Certified Copy of Power of Attorney, in fact

ARIZONA CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (Inventory Control Number: 0000000)
ADOT MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION - VEHICLE REGISTRATION

ADOT MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, KINGMAN OFFICE - VEHICLE REGISTRATION

This is a non-negotiable Legal Instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
pages X of X
[end]

P.S.
I hear that while the value of the commercial injury can be set at any value, the likeliness of being taken seriously, and more to the point, collecting anything, is higher when the value is set to a reasonable denomination.

[ezrhythm]

Thank You Aksis and to all who contributed toward the cause!

[aksis]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Thank You Aksis and to all who contributed toward the cause!

ezrhythm, you will want to read this thread:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...t=Cancellatura

And spend some time at www.commonlawvenue.com

The Minnesota court has been around for a while now.

Also, the Nevada group, yet the court has changed names. http://www.sovereignpeoplescourt.com

This is a piece of a larger process.

I hope no one thinks they are just going to terminate their registration and drivers licence, pull the plates of their car, and start traveling without quite a bit of study and some diplomacy.

[rottweiler]

The King has always, since ancient times at least, had a common law right to regulate trade, commerce, business and industry affecting the public interest on a public right of way. But only in the extraordinary and unusual conveyence of the day. Today the ordinary and usual conveyence of the day is a vehicle called the horse and buggy. No license, registration or insurance required for a horse and buggy. Use of a motor vehicle is considered to be a extraordinary and unusual conveyence of the day and accordingly under the power of the King to require license, registration and insurance, so says SCOTUS. Good Luck!

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The King has always, since ancient times at least, had a common law right to regulate trade, commerce, business and industry affecting the public interest on a public right of way. But only in the extraordinary and unusual conveyence of the day. Today the ordinary and usual conveyence of the day is a vehicle called the horse and buggy. No license, registration or insurance required for a horse and buggy. Use of a motor vehicle is considered to be a extraordinary and unusual conveyence of the day and accordingly under the power of the King to require license, registration and insurance, so says SCOTUS. Good Luck!

Trace back the vehicle code in your state when legislation was first passed (in most states, it's the 1900-1920 era). Now, look what the code encompassed. Did it apply exclusively to automobiles and/or trucks or did it also tie in other modes of commercial transportation (such as rail). Trace the history of what is now motor vehicle code in your state you'll probably be suprised in what you find.

[rottweiler]

I know we have a common law right to travel in our autos. Big Brother, however, does not seem to agree with that opinion.

Since he has the most firepower I will not challenge his "authority" at this time. I have no intention of standing in anyone's way who wants to challenge that authority. I am just pointing out the SCOTUS position for people.

For anything to change, someone is going to have to get SCOTUS to change their definition of ordinary and usual conveyance of the day to include the automobile. SCOTUS has no authority over any of us until we engage in certain activities. They claim the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle is one of those activities.

I have a common law right to eat. Does that mean I can move my herd of cattle thru the city to the county park where the grass is best?

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Trace back the vehicle code in your state when legislation was first passed (in most states, it's the 1900-1920 era). Now, look what the code encompassed. Did it apply exclusively to automobiles and/or trucks or did it also tie in other modes of commercial transportation (such as rail). Trace the history of what is now motor vehicle code in your state you'll probably be suprised in what you find.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I know we have a common law right to travel in our autos. Big Brother, however, does not seem to agree with that opinion.

Since he has the most firepower I will not challenge his "authority" at this time. I have no intention of standing in anyone's way who wants to challenge that authority. I am just pointing out the SCOTUS position for people.

For anything to change, someone is going to have to get SCOTUS to change their definition of ordinary and usual conveyance of the day to include the automobile. SCOTUS has no authority over any of us until we engage in certain activities. They claim the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle is one of those activities.

I have a common law right to eat. Does that mean I can move my herd of cattle thru the city to the county park where the grass is best?

Then I fail to see why you included in your previous post the statement concerning commerce. On the one post you seem to be implying it has weight in the SCOTUS decision and in the latter it seems you are saying it does not (and today the ordinary conveyance is certainly not horse and buggy).

[Big Al]

Just maybe we need to look at the word "RIGHTS" in an early 1914 edition of BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY. When you read the definition, you will come to the word (LOCOMOTION), this is available on line.