Driving Without A License / Sovereignty etc

Originally posted by Byrd
At one point early on he did have a lawyer who apparently stayed on through a couple of rounds of this, but eventually he fired the lawyer. My (uneducated) guess is that it was because the lawyer wouldn't add Biblical verses into the appeal and would just strictly see that Justice Was Done. Motions filed after the lawyer left included goodies like the Bible was sovereign over the law of the US and lengthy citations from whichever verses he felt sustained his point.

Wow, sounds like he definitely took the wrong route. Although, with the upcoming Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, that may work.

The correct route is to refuse to even recognize the jurisdiction of the maritime courts. If you do not act as a surety for your trade name, theoretically they have no way to prosecute you. When you are brought to a maritime court, the ALL-CAPS trade name is being tried in a commercial setting. Since you are ultimately tied to this name at birth, you will suffer the penalties that this TRADE NAME, as a citizen of the US, (not American citizen) will receive.

I believe the entire idea behind this thread is to declare sovereignty as an American citizen belonging to the republic of your respective state. As far as getting out of using a driver's license, the only way I see possible is to copyright your name, file a security agreement, hold harmless indemnity agreement, and financial statement. Then, when a cop pulls you over, you serve him the copyright papers for illegal use of your trademarked name.

Theoretically, either they are sued under common law for copyright infringment, or under the constitution for illegal imprisonment.

But then, you always have to take into account the tyranny of the government. I wouldn't be surprised if they sent you off to Guantanomo for that.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Byrd
At one point early on he did have a lawyer who apparently stayed on through a couple of rounds of this, but eventually he fired the lawyer. My (uneducated) guess is that it was because the lawyer wouldn't add Biblical verses into the appeal and would just strictly see that Justice Was Done. Motions filed after the lawyer left included goodies like the Bible was sovereign over the law of the US and lengthy citations from whichever verses he felt sustained his point.

Wow, sounds like he definitely took the wrong route. Although, with the upcoming Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, that may work.

The correct route is to refuse to even recognize the jurisdiction of the maritime courts. If you do not act as a surety for your trade name, theoretically they have no way to prosecute you. When you are brought to a maritime court, the ALL-CAPS trade name is being tried in a commercial setting. Since you are ultimately tied to this name at birth, you will suffer the penalties that this TRADE NAME, as a citizen of the US, (not American citizen) will receive.
[edit on 26-11-2004 by Jamuhn]

i've heard of that before...but do you have any sources or examples that show it has worked?

i've also read there is a difference between being tried in a court of record and court of no record aka a nisi prius court.

A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object to
something, then it means he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is a
procedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) and
therefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming to
the format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedure
to which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows cause.

A "nisi prius" procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agrees
UNLESS he objects.

A "nisi prius court" is a court which will proceed unless a party
objects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first.

It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court of
record. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceed
according to the common law (not the statutory law). The only way that
a court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of the
parties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according to
statutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is to
obtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (but
hidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment the
court offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolo
contendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namely
a statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is to
say, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute was
violated, not whether the common law was violated.

continued at / taken from - www.chrononhotonthologos.com...

Just wanted to post that I'm trying to get a research group off the ground involving these very ideas.

Please view the thread below for other info:

Can The UCC Set You Free?

If you're interested in contributing to the research project, please post there or U2U ADVISOR and let him know you're interested.


Thanks.


X