DO YOU TRUST LEGAL ADVICE IN INTERNET FORUMS?

[Book]

Some of the claims of esoteric constitutional "Rights" regarding property and income tax avoidance appear too good to be true. Anyone here legally avoid paying all property and income taxes while actually supporting and maintaining a real family, a real home, and a real life?

Just askin'

:oo-->

[Hugginator]

Gonna beat this horse some more?!? Geez why don't you STFU! Just sayin.

[Skirnir]

Actually, I have not paid income tax before, mostly by living beneath my means and renting an apartment. This year, I will get about $10K in Federal grants and scholarships, all tax-free. It is not much of a life because studies are the top priority and I live in a small town with nothing to do outside of the shooting range, but the bills are paid, and once I get the engineering degree, I can jump ship to Dubai or somewhere else I am welcome.

[1970 silver art]

I think that it is like anything else that you get from the Internet you have to DYODD. This is just my opinion but when it comes to legal advice, then a person should see an attorney in person and not completely rely on what is said on an internet forum.

[Horn]

The info. is and could be relevant for the younger (not so bagged) folk to decimate thru.

Granted some of us were too far "in the bag" before becoming enlightened so, as is my case.

Fleeing the wasp's nest becomes the only option.

I still appreciate reading thru some of it as it could come in handy some day in the future.

[I am me, I am free]

I submit that the collectivists and statists on this forum are clueless as to the meaning of the term 'legal advice' and specifically what it pertains to.

HINT: only an attorn-ey can give 'legal advice', while ANYONE can give lawful counsel.

[palani]

civilization
1704, "law which makes a criminal process civil"

Well, if a criminal process wasn't civil before then exactly what was it? Maybe common law?

Why would a law be needed to convert a crime to a civil venue? Collect money perhaps?

Is the U.S. (except for Louisiana) a common law nation? By gosh, it is.

Is civilization a PROCESS? Why, the definition says it is a process.

But doesn't a PROCESS convert something from one state to another "processed" state? You bet it does.

Now who precisely would have thought up this concept of "civilization"? My guess would be attorneys.

And are you going to rely on these same attorneys for your legal advice? Why I guess I would have to be an idiot to rely on one of these guys.

So where are you going for your legal advice? Well, google books has some nice old manuals printed before words started shifting their meaning. Dictionaries are a good place to start. Maxims of law are unchanging. Internet might be considered a source. See, the thing is, ignorance of the law is no excuse which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know. So if you don't know about law then possibly you have no duty to understand that law or it might be one which every man is presumed to know. Duty is derived from oath or contract. No other way to arrive at duty. The only laws I can perceive of that every man is presumed to know are natural laws ... if you jump into the ocean you are going to drown if you can't swim ... if you jump off a cliff the impact will kill you ... if you stick your hand in fire you are going to get burned.

Any questions?

[7th trump]

Some of the claims of esoteric constitutional "Rights" regarding property and income tax avoidance appear too good to be true. Anyone here legally avoid paying all property and income taxes while actually supporting and maintaining a real family, a real home, and a real life?

Just askin'

:oo-->

Its not of opinion about Constitutional Rights Book!
You read the government court case cites in regards to those Rights and privileges and who gets what or doesnt.

YOU LOSE!

[sirgonzo420]

Yeah, you better just do what the attorneys tell you to...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dn7JLqpmv84/S-webzPeDdI/AAAAAAAABHc/yDfVs-Ce8CQ/s1600/Elena+Kagan.jpg



::)

[Phoenix]

This man provided "lawful counsel" for many years!

<a href="http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Irwin&Middle=&LastName=Schiff&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=65&y=12">"Freeman no longer on the land"</a>

[7th trump]

This man provided "lawful counsel" for many years!

<a href="http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Irwin&Middle=&LastName=Schiff&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=65&y=12">"Freeman no longer on the land"</a>


No he got the interpretaion of the law all wrong................just like you do!

Now do you want me to go into the law itself and show you where Irwin and Hendrickson and the rest all got it wrong.

It all starts right here:
26 USC 3101

[Book]

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/recess_03_18/r32_18254339.jpg

"Sovereign Citizen" exercising his God-given Constitutionally-protected freedom from paying child support for his kids, property taxes, or income taxes to The Man. He won't accept a drivers license nor social security card in his pursuit of Life, Liberty, or Happiness. He be a free man...filing his own appellant papers at the Court House without a lawyer.

:oo-->

[Phoenix]

No he got the interpretaion of the law all wrong


<a href="http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Irwin&Middle=&LastName=Schiff&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=65&y=12">Obviously!</a>

http://www.paynoincometax.com/irwinschiff.htm

His current book "The Federal Mafia" shows you:

1. How you can immediately stop having income taxes taken from your pay;
2. How to get back every dime you paid in income taxes this year;
3. How to stop IRS agents from seizing your property... a power no IRS agent possesses;
4. How to break "offer and compromise" agreements you might have with the IRS, since these agreements were entered into on the basis of fraud and intimidation;

Remember, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy" and that's what those drunken sailors in the U.S. Congress have been doing, destroying America with your tax dollars, and its your patriotic "duty" not to let them get away with it any longer.

[sirgonzo420]

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/recess_03_18/r32_18254339.jpg

"Sovereign Citizen" exercising his God-given Constitutionally-protected freedom from paying child support for his kids, property taxes, or income taxes to The Man. He won't accept a drivers license nor social security card in his pursuit of Life, Liberty, or Happiness. He be a free man...filing his own appellant papers at the Court House without a lawyer.

:oo-->




A "sovereign citizen" is a fucking OXYMORON.

A citizen is a subject of a government.

A sovereign is not.

Kings are sovereign.

On the landmass called 'America', each man is supposed to be his own king.

[7th trump]

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/recess_03_18/r32_18254339.jpg

"Sovereign Citizen" exercising his God-given Constitutionally-protected freedom from paying child support for his kids, property taxes, or income taxes to The Man. He won't accept a drivers license nor social security card in his pursuit of Life, Liberty, or Happiness. He be a free man...filing his own appellant papers at the Court House without a lawyer.

:oo-->



Really, is this all you have Book?
Your communistical socialistic version of asking permission to do something isnt in pursuit of life, liberty or happiness and paying for it now is it.
You are in dire need a mental reality check.

[7th trump]

No he got the interpretaion of the law all wrong


<a href="http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Irwin&Middle=&LastName=Schiff&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=65&y=12">Obviously!</a>

http://www.paynoincometax.com/irwinschiff.htm

His current book "The Federal Mafia" shows you:

1. How you can immediately stop having income taxes taken from your pay;
2. How to get back every dime you paid in income taxes this year;
3. How to stop IRS agents from seizing your property... a power no IRS agent possesses;
4. How to break "offer and compromise" agreements you might have with the IRS, since these agreements were entered into on the basis of fraud and intimidation;

Remember, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy" and that's what those drunken sailors in the U.S. Congress have been doing, destroying America with your tax dollars, and its your patriotic "duty" not to let them get away with it any longer.

And you bought it hook line and sinker without ever checking the law didnt you.
Stupid is what stupid does Phoenix.
You cannot blame Irwin for your own stupidity of not doing due dilligents.
Theres dumb and even dumber yet!
And what kind if Christian blames another man for his own stupidity.
Nice guy you are phoenix.........real nice!

If they have power over you to tax its your own damn fault and your patriotic duty to see to it you let no man over you instead of this unchristian like fear tactics behavior you employ.

[Skirnir]

Here is a radical idea - instead of hurling accusations and misinterpreting each-other's posts, in light of the circumstances, why not find practical ways to achieve the best outcome for one's self?

[Gaillo]

Here is a radical idea - instead of hurling accusations and misinterpreting each-other's posts, in light of the circumstances, why not find practical ways to achieve the best outcome for one's self?


You haven't been around here very long... have you? ;D

[Skirnir]

Here is a radical idea - instead of hurling accusations and misinterpreting each-other's posts, in light of the circumstances, why not find practical ways to achieve the best outcome for one's self?


You haven't been around here very long... have you? ;D


I've been here long enough to know that the idea is radical.

[UFM]

i know ow to stop paying income tax and not go to prison. stop making income.

[I am me, I am free]

i know ow to stop paying income tax and not go to prison. stop making income.


I'm still waiting for someone to cite the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26. With all these know-it-all statists and collectivists on here you'd think one of them could provide that. lol

[sirgonzo420]

Right. If you never paid income taxes: A. You never had a job. or B. You're in prison right now.


Some people don't make enough taxable income, and those people may or may not have jobs and not be in prison.

[sirgonzo420]

i know ow to stop paying income tax and not go to prison. stop making income.


I'm still waiting for someone to cite the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26. With all these know-it-all statists and collectivists on here you'd think one of them could provide that. lol


Pleeease don't hold your breath; I'd miss your posts.

[I am me, I am free]

Anyone who takes 'legal advice' from ANYONE* is a fucking moron (or as the law puts it, an infant, an idiot, or an imbecile) and is the biggest sort of pwned fool.

*this especially includes BAR card carrying licensed liars/cheats/thieves aka attorn-eys

Here's a clue: look up the term 'attorn' in a law dictionary.

[willie pete]

Yeah, you better just do what the attorneys tell you to...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dn7JLqpmv84/S-webzPeDdI/AAAAAAAABHc/yDfVs-Ce8CQ/s1600/Elena+Kagan.jpg



::)




You can trust me, I'm a Lawyer.... :D

[I am me, I am free]

Right. If you never paid income taxes: A. You never had a job. or B. You're in prison right now.


Some people don't make enough taxable income, and those people may or may not have jobs and not be in prison.


I guess, if you are a contractor, file a 1099, and make less than $9,000. I doubt that's the case. What i see is "hey, ya'll, I never worked."



Since you come across as knowing what you're talking about, kindly provide the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26.

[I am me, I am free]

Right. If you never paid income taxes: A. You never had a job. or B. You're in prison right now.


Some people don't make enough taxable income, and those people may or may not have jobs and not be in prison.


I guess, if you are a contractor, file a 1099, and make less than $9,000. I doubt that's the case. What i see is "hey, ya'll, I never worked."

Profits made from speculation or something along those lines?

My point is, even if you get a tax refund, you still payed.




Since you come across as knowing what you're talking about, kindly provide the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26.



Rectum extractions do not count - I want a specific cite from Title 26 which can be referenced.

[Book]

I want a specific cite from Title 26 which can be referenced.



You tell 'em you is free...lol.

:oo-->

[Horn]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zBmscYmwexU/ScCqAucU_4I/AAAAAAAAAjM/xIyAEZ_H-iA/s320/bitch_on_board.gif

[Phoenix]

Since you come across as knowing what you're talking about, kindly provide the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26.


Income is whatever the IRS says it is.

[Phoenix]

Rectum extractions do not count - I want a specific cite from Title 26 which can be referenced.


26 USC 61:

Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
( 8 ) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

26 USC 63:

Taxable income defined

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.
(c) Standard deduction
For purposes of this subtitle—
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term “standard deduction” means the sum of—
(A) the basic standard deduction,
(B) the additional standard deduction,
(C) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2008 or 2009, the real property tax deduction,
(D) the disaster loss deduction, and
(E) the motor vehicle sales tax deduction.
(2) Basic standard deduction
For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is—
(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of—
(i) a joint return, or
(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2 (b)), or
(C) $3,000 in any other case.
(3) Additional standard deduction for aged and blind
For purposes of paragraph (1), the additional standard deduction is the sum of each additional amount to which the taxpayer is entitled under subsection (f).
(4) Adjustments for inflation
In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1988, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to—
(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1 (f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by substituting for “calendar year 1992” in subparagraph (B) thereof—
(i) “calendar year 1987” in the case of the dollar amounts contained in paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (5)(A) or subsection (f), and
(ii) “calendar year 1997” in the case of the dollar amount contained in paragraph (5)(B).
(5) Limitation on basic standard deduction in the case of certain dependents
In the case of an individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual’s taxable year begins, the basic standard deduction applicable to such individual for such individual’s taxable year shall not exceed the greater of—
(A) $500, or
(B) the sum of $250 and such individual’s earned income.
(6) Certain individuals, etc., not eligible for standard deduction
In the case of—
(A) a married individual filing a separate return where either spouse itemizes deductions,
(B) a nonresident alien individual,
(C) an individual making a return under section 443 (a)(1) for a period of less than 12 months on account of a change in his annual accounting period, or
(D) an estate or trust, common trust fund, or partnership,
the standard deduction shall be zero.
(7) Real property tax deduction
For purposes of paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is the lesser of—
(A) the amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for State and local taxes described in section 164 (a)(1), or
(B) $500 ($1,000 in the case of a joint return).
Any taxes taken into account under section 62 (a) shall not be taken into account under this paragraph.
( 8 ) Disaster loss deduction
For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term “disaster loss deduction” means the net disaster loss (as defined in section 165 (h)(3)(B)).
(9) Motor vehicle sales tax deduction
For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “motor vehicle sales tax deduction” means the amount allowable as a deduction under section 164 (a)(6). Such term shall not include any amount taken into account under section 62 (a).
(d) Itemized deductions
For purposes of this subtitle, the term “itemized deductions” means the deductions allowable under this chapter other than—
(1) the deductions allowable in arriving at adjusted gross income, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided by section 151.
(e) Election to itemize
(1) In general
Unless an individual makes an election under this subsection for the taxable year, no itemized deduction shall be allowed for the taxable year. For purposes of this subtitle, the determination of whether a deduction is allowable under this chapter shall be made without regard to the preceding sentence.
(2) Time and manner of election
Any election under this subsection shall be made on the taxpayer’s return, and the Secretary shall prescribe the manner of signifying such election on the return.
(3) Change of election
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a change of election with respect to itemized deductions for any taxable year may be made after the filing of the return for such year. If the spouse of the taxpayer filed a separate return for any taxable year corresponding to the taxable year of the taxpayer, the change shall not be allowed unless, in accordance with such regulations—
(A) the spouse makes a change of election with respect to itemized deductions, for the taxable year covered in such separate return, consistent with the change of treatment sought by the taxpayer, and
(B) the taxpayer and his spouse consent in writing to the assessment (within such period as may be agreed on with the Secretary) of any deficiency, to the extent attributable to such change of election, even though at the time of the filing of such consent the assessment of such deficiency would otherwise be prevented by the operation of any law or rule of law.
This paragraph shall not apply if the tax liability of the taxpayer’s spouse for the taxable year corresponding to the taxable year of the taxpayer has been compromised under section 7122.
(f) Aged or blind additional amounts
(1) Additional amounts for the aged
The taxpayer shall be entitled to an additional amount of $600—
(A) for himself if he has attained age 65 before the close of his taxable year, and
(B) for the spouse of the taxpayer if the spouse has attained age 65 before the close of the taxable year and an additional exemption is allowable to the taxpayer for such spouse under section 151 (b).
(2) Additional amount for blind
The taxpayer shall be entitled to an additional amount of $600—
(A) for himself if he is blind at the close of the taxable year, and
(B) for the spouse of the taxpayer if the spouse is blind as of the close of the taxable year and an additional exemption is allowable to the taxpayer for such spouse under section 151 (b).
For purposes of subparagraph (B), if the spouse dies during the taxable year the determination of whether such spouse is blind shall be made as of the time of such death.
(3) Higher amount for certain unmarried individuals
In the case of an individual who is not married and is not a surviving spouse, paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be applied by substituting “$750” for “$600”.
(4) Blindness defined
For purposes of this subsection, an individual is blind only if his central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with correcting lenses, or if his visual acuity is greater than 20/200 but is accompanied by a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees.
(g) Marital status
For purposes of this section, marital status shall be determined under section 7703.

[Phoenix]

You quote title 26 for us. I don't have time to look through every subsection of Title 26.


I do. After all, I'm on the Internet 24/7/365, according to Sukhoi Fan. ::)

Now watch him obfuscate, backpeddle, and generally use sophistry to try to argue that 26 USC 61 and 63 don't actually mean what they say.

[I am me, I am free]

You quote title 26 for us. I don't have time to look through every subsection of Title 26.


I do. After all, I'm on the Internet 24/7/365, according to Sukhoi Fan. ::)

Now watch him obfuscate, backpeddle, and generally use sophistry to try to argue that 26 USC 61 and 63 don't actually mean what they say.


That definition is for 'gross income'. That's like saying 'gross widgets' - I comprehend the term 'gross', but what's a widget??

Still waiting for that definition for the term 'income' from Title 26. Only a fool would accept the term 'gross income' without the term 'income' defined.

[Phoenix]

You quote title 26 for us. I don't have time to look through every subsection of Title 26.


I do. After all, I'm on the Internet 24/7/365, according to Sukhoi Fan. ::)

Now watch him obfuscate, backpeddle, and generally use sophistry to try to argue that 26 USC 61 and 63 don't actually mean what they say.


That definition is for 'gross income'. That's like saying 'gross widgets' - I comprehend the term 'gross', but what's a widget??

Still waiting for that definition for the term 'income' from Title 26. Only a fool would accept the term 'gross income' without the term 'income' defined.



"Now watch him obfuscate, backpeddle, and generally use sophistry to try to argue that 26 USC 61 and 63 don't actually mean what they say."

Actually, 26 USC 63 is for "taxable income."

[I am me, I am free]

You continue to strike out Quantum. lol

Show us all the definition for the term 'income' on Title 26*.

'Taxable income' and 'gross income' do not count - that's like saying 'taxable widgets' or 'gross widgets'. The question remains: what's a widget relative to those terms?

Again I assert that only a FOOL would accept an undefined term.

[Phoenix]

Show us all the definition for the term 'income' on Title 26*.


"gross income means all income from whatever source derived"

26 USC 61(a)




Again I assert that only a FOOL would accept an undefined term.


Only a FOOL would accept that you are anything but a con-man. Just like Billy Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[I am me, I am free]

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived"

That cite fails to define the term 'income' as well, in fact it's a glaring example of obfuscation.

What exactly is it that motivates you to sheepherd EVERYONE into compliance with the beast system?? What do you gain by spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort doing so?? How is anyone else's business YOUR business?? Who is the injured party is one does not VOLUNTEER* to 'pay' 'income' taxes??

*the IRS does make a big deal out of participating in their scheme being 'voluntary'

[Joe King]

Show us all the definition for the term 'income' on Title 26*.
"gross income means all income from whatever source derived"
26 USC 61(a)


Again I assert that only a FOOL would accept an undefined term.
Only a FOOL would accept that you are anything but a con-man. Just like Billy Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Sorry for the interjection, but to be fair what he's saying has at least some merit.

The words "gross" and "taxable" are modifiers to the word that follows it. Both words in both usages need to be individually defined to be able to ascertain a proper definition of their combined usage.
i.e. using the widget example, it's impossible to read a law that imposes a tax on widgets and determine if I owe that tax if no definition exists of what a widget is.

Unless of course you're asking people to assume what it means.

The way I see it, if a sitting President can ask about the definition of the word "is", you can't blame people for asking about the definition of the word "income" within the context of the law that taxes it. :oo-->

[Phoenix]

What exactly is it that motivates you to sheepherd EVERYONE into compliance with the beast system??


We know that your motivation for spreading LIES that lead to jail for those you CON is personal gain, both money and almost certainly "prestige."

[Phoenix]

Sorry for the interjection, but to be fair what he's saying has at least some merit.


Sock, no one believes you are a "new member" here. Who are you the alter-ego for?

[Joe King]

Sorry for the interjection, but to be fair what he's saying has at least some merit.


Sock, no one believes you are a "new member" here. Who are you the alter-ego for?

I'm not "new". I joined the day the forum opened and have just been reading. I lurked on GIM for over a year without posting.
What sucked about the whole GIM thing for me was that by the time I was actually going to post, they announced they were shutting it down.
I mean, it was literally the same day. Pissed me off, let me tell you. :redfc


Now, back to the subject at hand.
How can I effectively tax widgets without defining the word widget?

It is, after all, an "income tax". Not a "gross income tax". Or a "taxable income tax".

Asking for a definition within the law of the term that the entire law is about is not asking too much. Nor is it being unreasonable.

The tax law that imposes a tax on alcohol defines what "alcohol" is, right?

[Phoenix]

How can I effectively tax widgets without defining the word widget?


Sukhoi Fan, you're not very good at this.

"Widgets" -

http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/do-you-trust-legal-advice-in-internet-forums/msg89420/#msg89420

[Joe King]

How can I effectively tax widgets without defining the word widget?

Sukhoi Fan, you're not very good at this.
"Widgets" -
http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/do-you-trust-legal-advice-in-internet-forums/msg89420/#msg89420
I was just pointing out that I Am Me has a vaild point and I agree with the widget analogy.

It just seems like a very basic thing to actually define the word that the law is about.

Also, I am not advocating that anyone reading either pay or not pay income tax.
As the IRS even admits, ones liability for a particular tax is a legal determination one must make for them themselves.

[Fortyone]

The info. is and could be relevant for the younger (not so bagged) folk to decimate thru.

Granted some of us were too far "in the bag" before becoming enlightened so, as is my case.

Fleeing the wasp's nest becomes the only option.

I still appreciate reading thru some of it as it could come in handy some day in the future.


You mean Deciminate? LMAO,Im sorry !The visual is funny! "DECIMATE THE INFO!!"

[7th trump]

Since you come across as knowing what you're talking about, kindly provide the definition of the term 'income' from Title 26.


Income is whatever the IRS says it is.

No it is not.
Income is what Congress says it is. The IRS has no authority what so ever other than to collect revenue. Its a collection agency of the US treasurey nothing more and nothing else.

[I am me, I am free]

What exactly is it that motivates you to sheepherd EVERYONE into compliance with the beast system??


We know that your motivation for spreading LIES that lead to jail for those you CON is personal gain, both money and almost certainly "prestige."




This particular post of yours clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no compunction about propagating outright lies to suit your agenda. Since you claim to be a Christian, I would think you'd be very familiar with the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". So I'm guessing this post I quoted in this instance you're showing everyone here what a bald-faced hypocrite you are.

Personal gain?? Not a chance, I've never accepted compensation for sharing info, in fact I've spent a lot of my own time, effort, and resources pointing out the facts of these matters to others, telling them where they can find the facts for themselves and giving them the opportunity to draw their OWN conclusions. As I always tell folks I'm testifying to: "Accept or reject what I'm telling you, it does not matter to me. Do your OWN objective research, draw your OWN reasonable conclusions, and ACT accordingly."

Quantum/Phoenix, you on the other hand wish to impose YOUR will upon others while beating the living shyte out of 'em (figuratively speaking) or have YOUR representatives from the corporate state beat the living shyte out of 'em (literally speaking). Neither of these approaches give you pause, and yet you claim to be a Christian. It appears to me that you're nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And oh yeah, the 'prestige' thing - you are such a joker. You cannot be serious. I'm the least bit concerned about 'prestige' before a group of a few dozen folks (I've never met) on a discussion forum? What a hoot.

[I am me, I am free]

What exactly is it that motivates you to sheepherd EVERYONE into compliance with the beast system??


We know that your motivation for spreading LIES that lead to jail for those you CON is personal gain, both money and almost certainly "prestige."




Oh yeah, forgot to mention: nice try at your attempt to deflect attention away from your efforts to impose YOUR will on others, but mega FAIL. lol


What exactly is it that motivates you to sheepherd EVERYONE into compliance with the beast system?? What do you gain by spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort doing so?? How is anyone else's business YOUR business?? Who is the injured party if one does not VOLUNTEER* to 'pay' 'income' taxes??

Given your track record, I really should have known better than to have reasonably expected any response from you regarding these questions. lol

[iOWNme]

Why are people under the assumption that the IRS has the Lawful/Legal authority to define 'income'?

The US Supreme Court is the only entity that has the authority, and they have defined 'income' many times. AND IT ISNT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.


NER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/252/189/index.html)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/1/index.html)

DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179 (1918) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/179/index.html)

SOUTHERN PAC CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 330 (1918) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/330/index.html)

Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/179/index.html)

MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/509/index.html)


http://www.afreecountry.com/tpcs/irs/income.php




It can be very easily ascertained that the meaning of income did not change after the passage of the 16th amendment. The meaning was decided by the Supreme Court to be the same even after the federal government had passed three separate acts in 1913 (the addition of the 16th Amendment,) 1916 and 1917. Even though the government repeatedly attempted to expand the scope of the word 'income', the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled its meaning was the same.

It is also obvious by the last paragraph in bold in the last case above, that selling one's house for more money than for which it was purchase cannot be construed as gain on capital or capital gains. Even for those who fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government who also sell a house at a later date than it was purchased, do not have to pay a capital gains tax on said house. Just to repeat the specific decision above.



Im not saying you wont be killed by the Goons, Im merely stating FACT when it comes to the definition of Income.

If the DE FACTO FICTIONAL IRS, BATF, CIA or DHS could LAWFULLY define their own words, we wouldnt need a US Supreme Court. No matter how Kangaroo it has become....

[dysgenic]

From a personal standpoint, I've found a lot of the 'legal advice', or 'information' pertaining to such issues as corporate vs. private, UCC, licensing, etc. very helpful, interesting, and often even technically correct. Problem is, in the real world the info is practically useless or even dangerous.
My position is that it's valuable to know the real laws and to expose them, but it's not (usually) prudent to violate the fake laws that the criminals mercilessly enforce. In short, use good judgment based on risk vs. reward and potential gain vs. potential loss.

dys

[palani]

Im merely stating FACT when it comes to the definition of Income.


Be prepared to have your folder stamped "DO NOT CITE" should you bring up case cites prior to 1938. Seems the court system just really doesn't want to discuss the issue.

Do you have any Supreme Court cites post 1938?

[I am me, I am free]

Im merely stating FACT when it comes to the definition of Income.


Be prepared to have your folder stamped "DO NOT CITE" should you bring up case cites prior to 1938. Seems the court system just really doesn't want to discuss the issue.

Do you have any Supreme Court cites post 1938?


For those that don't get the significance of 1938 that's the year of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie RR. v. Tompkins, a landmark case which established a new jurisdiction, administrative jurisdiction. Which is why courts tend to blow off pre-'38 cases.

[iOWNme]

Im merely stating FACT when it comes to the definition of Income.


Be prepared to have your folder stamped "DO NOT CITE" should you bring up case cites prior to 1938. Seems the court system just really doesn't want to discuss the issue.

Do you have any Supreme Court cites post 1938?


We are traveling farther down the Rabbit hole now....And you are spot on.

Yet, what year was thew 16th Amendment ratified? Before or After 1938?

It is painfully obvious the US Supreme has decided to NEVER hear another definition of 'income' argument ever again, right? Which seems to be their little way of saying "We already told you what the Law is...."

Too bad they wont proactively take action against every single .Gov agency that subverts Law in favor of 'Public Policy'. But wait a minute, maybe they dont need to go after them, BECAUSE WE CONSENTED.....

[Book]

Problem is, in the real world the info is practically useless or even dangerous.



http://www.adrants.com/images/weingart_homeless.jpg

Agreed. Anyone contemplating using this legal mumbo jumbo when up against The Man should first try on their future wardrobe...lol.

:D

[iOWNme]

Erie RR v Thompkins = NO CONTRACT, NO CASE



:)

[palani]

Anyone contemplating using this legal mumbo jumbo when up against The Man should first try on their future wardrobe..


As it is your law then you have no excuse for ignorance.

[dysgenic]

The only practical relevance in these discussions lies in liberation of the mind (a fancy way of saying 'understanding how truly fudged we are') . Fighting about what is legal and what is not is an exercise in futility as the bad guys only use the rules as pretense; they violate them with impunity and without recourse.

"The illegal we do at once, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
-Henry Kissinger

For myself, I've TRIED using the real law to defeat the bad guys. It's mostly resulted in failure, and even my successes were tempered by the amount of time and money I had to part with in order to yield very nominal and superficial victories. From someone that has walked down this road, any ground given my the other side is given begrudgingly and only after the requisite hoops have been jumped through... and even then ONLY in matters of triviality from their perspective. Issues that matter-- forget it, ain't happening.

dys

[I am me, I am free]

Fighting about what is legal and what is not is an exercise in futility as the bad guys only use the rules as pretense; they violate them with impunity and without recourse.

Simply put, it's because a critical mass has not yet been reached. They keep everyone cowering because they take out one at a time and use them as examples to terrorize the rest of the herd.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine

You cannot reasonably expect someone else to do all the heavy lifting for you.

[Book]

Anyone contemplating using this legal mumbo jumbo when up against The Man should first try on their future wardrobe..


As it is your law then you have no excuse for ignorance.



http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?7093-WTF&p=63523#post63523

A classic example of a interwebs paralegal spouting legal mumbo jumbo...lol.

:D

[Book]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/238399/2_61_111006_police_beating2.jpg
"Your fist has no jurisdiction over my nose pursuant to Nose v. Fist 112 Wis. 2d 1, 331 N.W.2d 840 (1964)"

:oo-->

[palani]

A classic example of a interwebs paralegal spouting legal mumbo jumbo...lol.

So you do not contract with anyone, demosthenes? Are you free to discuss things on a discussion board? Do I have the same freedom?

So what are we discussing now? If nothing then fill us in on how much you made in the snitch business so far this year? Did you serve as an apprentice before you became versed in the Quisling Science?

[palani]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/238399/2_61_111006_police_beating2.jpg
"Your fist has no jurisdiction over my nose pursuant to Nose v. Fist 112 Wis. 2d 1, 331 N.W.2d 840 (1964)"

:oo-->

Is this legal advice? Or just more mumbo jumbo?

[Book]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/238399/2_61_111006_police_beating2.jpg
"Your fist has no jurisdiction over my nose pursuant to Nose v. Fist 112 Wis. 2d 1, 331 N.W.2d 840 (1964)"

:oo-->


Is this legal advice? Or just more mumbo jumbo?



http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?7093-WTF&p=63523#post63523

Exactly...lol.

:ROFL:

[dysgenic]

I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore. You can certainly collapse the pretense and force them to take off their masks. But I think they are too firmly entrenched with too much influence to collapse their power- unless you can take it from them.
"Our right lies in force."
Protocol 1, The Protocols of Zion, by author unknown

That doesn't mean anyone should give up. It certainly doesn't mean anyone should make it easy on them. What it does mean is that it's a great idea to fight your fraudulent speeding tickets and your fraudulent parking tickets, but it's probably not smart to refuse to pay your property tax and booby trap your house. It's about resisting judiciously without falling on one's sword.
Incidentally, Marc Stevens (marcstevens.net) is a great source for understanding the corrupt nature of the criminal justice system and the IRS.

dys














Fighting about what is legal and what is not is an exercise in futility as the bad guys only use the rules as pretense; they violate them with impunity and without recourse.

Simply put, it's because a critical mass has not yet been reached. They keep everyone cowering because they take out one at a time and use them as examples to terrorize the rest of the herd.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine

You cannot reasonably expect someone else to do all the heavy lifting for you.

[palani]

I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.

[dysgenic]

Problem is, you've got the wrong root cause. The right root cause is that the zionists control all 3 branches of the US government. Oops, now the problem isn't so easy to resolve.

dys






I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.

[I am me, I am free]

I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.


Good points - there was never a peace treaty ending the War of Northern Aggression and therefore Lincoln's General Order No. 100 aka The Lieber Code (the war powers) is still in effect.

Yes, the Zionists are an issue, but the Zionists are using such things as the war powers against us. We outnumber them.

[Book]

What it does mean is that it's a great idea to fight your fraudulent speeding tickets and your fraudulent parking tickets, but it's probably not smart to refuse to pay your property tax and booby trap your house. It's about resisting judiciously without falling on one's sword.



Exactly. In the past week or so there has been a form of obvious mental illness spamming many threads here at GSUS. I started this DO YOU TRUST LEGAL ADVICE IN INTERNET FORUMS? thread to focus on and expose their recent behavior:

:oo-->


Vexatious litigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

[dysgenic]

As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys








I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.


Good points - there was never a peace treaty ending the War of Northern Aggression and therefore Lincoln's General Order No. 100 aka The Lieber Code (the war powers) is still in effect.

Yes, the Zionists are an issue, but the Zionists are using such things as the war powers against us. We outnumber them.

[palani]

What it does mean is that it's a great idea to fight your fraudulent speeding tickets and your fraudulent parking tickets, but it's probably not smart to refuse to pay your property tax and booby trap your house. It's about resisting judiciously without falling on one's sword.



Exactly. In the past week or so there has been a form of obvious mental illness spamming many threads here at GSUS. I started this DO YOU TRUST LEGAL ADVICE IN INTERNET FORUMS? thread to focus on and expose their recent behavior:

:oo-->


Vexatious litigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation


So let me get this straight. You don't trust legal advice on internet forums yet use WIKIPEDIA for a source?

Don't you know that only PERSONS appear in court and that a PERSON (like a corporation) requires REPRESENTATION? You can NEVER appear in court without REPRESENTATION, even if you appear in proper person (it is still a PERSON isn't it?)

[palani]

As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources.
There is no money.

[I am me, I am free]

As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys



Have you no faith in the Creator's plan??

All David had were his slingshot and his stones. The task appeared insurmountable, in the end it was not.

[Skirnir]

What it does mean is that it's a great idea to fight your fraudulent speeding tickets and your fraudulent parking tickets, but it's probably not smart to refuse to pay your property tax and booby trap your house. It's about resisting judiciously without falling on one's sword.



Exactly. In the past week or so there has been a form of obvious mental illness spamming many threads here at GSUS. I started this DO YOU TRUST LEGAL ADVICE IN INTERNET FORUMS? thread to focus on and expose their recent behavior:

:oo-->


Vexatious litigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation


So let me get this straight. You don't trust legal advice on internet forums yet use WIKIPEDIA for a source?

Don't you know that only PERSONS appear in court and that a PERSON (like a corporation) requires REPRESENTATION? You can NEVER appear in court without REPRESENTATION, even if you appear in proper person (it is still a PERSON isn't it?)


Fair enough; do you consider West's Encyclopaedia of American Law, 2e, to be a credible source? If not, which reference(s) do you consider valid?

[palani]

Fair enough; do you consider West's Encyclopaedia of American Law, 2e, to be a credible source? If not, which reference(s) do you consider valid?
One not copyrighted. One that does not promote private law of which I am not a party.

[Skirnir]

Fair enough; do you consider West's Encyclopaedia of American Law, 2e, to be a credible source? If not, which reference(s) do you consider valid?
One not copyrighted. One that does not promote private law of which I am not a party.

Specific titles, editions, &/or ISBNs. I am not going to go through the whole f&cking Library of Congress.

[dysgenic]

I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys






As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys



Have you no faith in the Creator's plan??

All David had were his slingshot and his stones. The task appeared insurmountable, in the end it was not.

[I am me, I am free]

Fair enough; do you consider West's Encyclopaedia of American Law, 2e, to be a credible source? If not, which reference(s) do you consider valid?
One not copyrighted. One that does not promote private law of which I am not a party.


Yep, that's right, West Publishing copyrights their private law. Spiritual wickedness in high places.

[Skirnir]

I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys




Yep, that's right, West Publishing copyrights their private law. Spiritual wickedness in high places.

:lies:

[I am me, I am free]

I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys






As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys



Have you no faith in the Creator's plan??

All David had were his slingshot and his stones. The task appeared insurmountable, in the end it was not.



How is that a problem??

I take it you don't enjoy The Contest He created.

[Skirnir]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[dysgenic]

I'll answer your tongue in cheek rhetorical and leading question: No, I don't think I'll like it very much if and when I'm required to accept the mark of the beast in order to buy and sell. However, my God, the TRUE Creator, the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, has His reasons. If I'm required to play a part when the time comes, I'm willing to drink that cup.

dys







I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys






As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys



Have you no faith in the Creator's plan??

All David had were his slingshot and his stones. The task appeared insurmountable, in the end it was not.



How is that a problem??

I take it you don't enjoy The Contest He created.

[dysgenic]

This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.

dys





Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[I am me, I am free]

I'll answer your tongue in cheek rhetorical and leading question: No, I don't think I'll like it very much if and when I'm required to accept the mark of the beast in order to buy and sell. However, my God, the TRUE Creator, the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, has His reasons. If I'm required to play a part when the time comes, I'm willing to drink that cup.

dys







I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys






As far as outnumbering them- we do but we don't. They've got all the money and all the resources. They've got the press. They've got the best weapons. They have the best intelligence by far and away. And I'm not so sure that the numbers are as skewed as most people seem to think, once you consider the number of their stooges and the degree of apathy/lack of courage in our society.
The example that everyone wants to give is the American Revolution. Has anyone considered that 'we' didn't 'win'? The zionists did. That's right, this thing called America was planned by the zionists from the very beginning. Oh, and the beacon of freedom that used to be America? Not only is it a fraud in today's world (which you all know), it was ALWAYS a fraud. America: the great nation that isn't and never was.

dys



Have you no faith in the Creator's plan??

All David had were his slingshot and his stones. The task appeared insurmountable, in the end it was not.



How is that a problem??

I take it you don't enjoy The Contest He created.



But that point in The Contest is the pinnacle, the ultimate time to get to exercise your Free Agency! It's a very exciting time to be a witness to.

Panic early, avoid the rush. lol

[I am me, I am free]

I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys




Yep, that's right, West Publishing copyrights their private law. Spiritual wickedness in high places.

:lies:


How can you possibly call someone's personal testimony of their faith a lie?? How can you deny the fact that West Publishing copyrights everything they print, i.e. all the law books they print?? Are you on drugs??

[dysgenic]

One of your complaints against Phoenix was that he wouldn't answer your questions responsively. I wanted to find out if that was true, because I don't like it when I ask people questions and they answer unresponsively. Thankfully, you've solved the riddle for me. You ask mocking, indirect and leading questions that you don't want answers to, then you claim the questions to be genuine after the fact when the party that you ask either responds in kind or refuses to dignify your ridicule with a response. I would tell you that you revealed yourself, but truth is I've had my suspicions about you for awhile now. Thanks for confirming them.

dys








I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys




Yep, that's right, West Publishing copyrights their private law. Spiritual wickedness in high places.

:lies:


How can you possibly call someone's personal testimony of their faith a lie?? How can you deny the fact that West Publishing copyrights everything they print, i.e. all the law books they print?? Are you on drugs??

[palani]

Yep, that's right, West Publishing copyrights their private law. Spiritual wickedness in high places.

:lies:


Not so much. Care to eat some crow?
http://west.thomson.com/about/copyright/default.aspx

©2010 West, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved.
Except for these specified uses, no part of the materials available in this website may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, further transmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored, disseminated, transferred, or used, in any form or by any means, except as permitted herein or with West's prior written agreement. Distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited.

A court is COMMERCIAL. It is PUBLIC rather than PRIVATE. You might find yourself in a court where Law actually might be of interest. A copyright violation is the first thing the black robed priest is going to check for. He will find you guilty of one thing or another. He just looks for the simplest thing to find you guilty of.

[Skirnir]

This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



No, jesus-freak, you just so happen to disagree with it.

[dysgenic]

Actually, it's totally illogical. The reason is this: God allows His children freewill. Because we (people) have freewill, that means we can choose to do good, or choose to do evil. God does not make this choice on our behalf. A world without evil is a world without freewill. All your little poem/essay/whatever does is to make the argument that it is just for a Creator to manipulate and coerce the created. This is by extension a world without individuality. Do you believe that it is just for a Creator to remove freedom of choice from the created?

dys






This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



No, jesus-freak, you just so happen to disagree with it.

[sirgonzo420]

Actually, it's totally illogical. The reason is this: God allows His children freewill. Because we (people) have freewill, that means we can choose to do good, or choose to do evil. God does not make this choice on our behalf. A world without evil is a world without freewill. All your little poem/essay/whatever does is to make the argument that it is just for a Creator to manipulate and coerce the created. This is by extension a world without individuality. Do you believe that it is just for a Creator to remove freedom of choice from the created?

dys






This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



No, jesus-freak, you just so happen to disagree with it.



If God (as in, the biblical character) knows exactly everything that you will do before you do it, how do you have free will, and not just an illusion of free will?

"Predestination"/"an all-knowing God" seem to be irreconcilable with the notion of true "free will".

[dysgenic]

God is omniscient- he knows EVERYTHING. I know that we have freewill because:

1. The characteristic of His omniscience allows Him to know these things.
2. He tells us we have freewill. What God says, He does.

dys






Actually, it's totally illogical. The reason is this: God allows His children freewill. Because we (people) have freewill, that means we can choose to do good, or choose to do evil. God does not make this choice on our behalf. A world without evil is a world without freewill. All your little poem/essay/whatever does is to make the argument that it is just for a Creator to manipulate and coerce the created. This is by extension a world without individuality. Do you believe that it is just for a Creator to remove freedom of choice from the created?

dys






This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



No, jesus-freak, you just so happen to disagree with it.



If God (as in, the biblical character) knows exactly everything that you will do before you do it, how do you have free will, and not just an illusion of free will?

"Predestination"/"an all-knowing God" seem to be irreconcilable with the notion of true "free will".

[Phoenix]

This particular post of yours clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no compunction about propagating outright lies to suit your agenda.


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.

[I am me, I am free]

This particular post of yours clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no compunction about propagating outright lies to suit your agenda.


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.


How would posting my personal info on this forum, or even PMing it to someone who has an axe to grind benefit me??

Everyone who knows me personally in the RW knows my status, it's no secret. There's no way I'm going to allow any sociopaths trolling the 'net to have any of my personal info, and anyone who requests it (or DEMANDS it) can pound sand.

My "refusal to provide...proof" is meaningless under the circumstances, and only an imbecile would think otherwise.

[Phoenix]

Given your track record, I really should have known better than to have reasonably expected any response from you regarding these questions. lol


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.

[I am me, I am free]

Given your track record, I really should have known better than to have reasonably expected any response from you regarding these questions. lol


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.


So...is this umpteenth re-post your admission that you're an imbecile??

[Skirnir]

Actually, it's totally illogical. The reason is this: God allows His children freewill. Because we (people) have freewill, that means we can choose to do good, or choose to do evil. God does not make this choice on our behalf. A world without evil is a world without freewill. All your little poem/essay/whatever does is to make the argument that it is just for a Creator to manipulate and coerce the created. This is by extension a world without individuality. Do you believe that it is just for a Creator to remove freedom of choice from the created?

dys






This quote is absent of logic and wisdom. It reeks of spiritual sickness.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



No, jesus-freak, you just so happen to disagree with it.



It happens to be a quote from Epicurus. As for the issue of creators, no such thing, and if you are speaking of whom I think you are speaking, then that guy is a sick f&ck.

[Phoenix]

I have absolute faith in the Creator's plan, that is the problem. See: Book of Revelation.

dys


Ask him to define "creator." It's not Yahweh God. He believes in the same "god/creator" as David Icke: Lucifer by another name.

[Phoenix]

I take it you don't enjoy The Contest He created.


There is no "contest." The Devil owns this world, until Christ comes back.

That is the lesson the real God told us. But you don't worship the real God. You pretend you can play legal games with the Devil.

[sirgonzo420]

I take it you don't enjoy The Contest He created.


There is no "contest." The Devil owns this world, until Christ comes back.

That is the lesson the real God told us. But you don't worship the real God. You pretend you can play legal games with the Devil.


Why does the 'real God' endorse Satan to begin with?

How can Satan/Evil/Sin/Death exist without God's will/consent?

Why did God go through the hassle of Creation when he KNEW beforehand that man would "fall"?

[Phoenix]

If God (as in, the biblical character) knows exactly everything that you will do before you do it, how do you have free will, and not just an illusion of free will?

"Predestination"/"an all-knowing God" seem to be irreconcilable with the notion of true "free will".


Absolutely not. God is not like men, changing according to what they learn.

[Phoenix]

God is omniscient- he knows EVERYTHING. I know that we have freewill because:

1. The characteristic of His omniscience allows Him to know these things.
2. He tells us we have freewill. What God says, He does.

dys


But to believe that requires faith in God. Most men have faith only in themselves. That's been the problem since the Fruit.

[Phoenix]

Given your track record, I really should have known better than to have reasonably expected any response from you regarding these questions. lol


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.


So...is this umpteenth re-post your admission that you're an imbecile??


Every time you refuse, you are exposed as the LIAR you are.

[sirgonzo420]

If God (as in, the biblical character) knows exactly everything that you will do before you do it, how do you have free will, and not just an illusion of free will?

"Predestination"/"an all-knowing God" seem to be irreconcilable with the notion of true "free will".


Absolutely not. God is not like men, changing according to what they learn.


Think of the world as a movie playing out....

God has the script; he KNOWS the outcome, and every single one of the scenes along the way, right?

Men are merely actors... the characters they play may seem to have free will, but they are bound to adhere to predefined boundaries; the die was cast before Creation - the story is already written in stone.

There is no logical way to reconcile the notion of TRUE FREE WILL with DIVINE PREDESTINATION.

[Phoenix]

Why does the 'real God' endorse Satan to begin with?

How can Satan/Evil/Sin/Death exist without God's will/consent?


God created the angels with free will. Some of them, one in particular, decided to do the wrong thing.




Why did God go through the hassle of Creation when he KNEW beforehand that man would "fall"?


What joy is there in having a preprogrammed toy "love" you? So much better to have a pet, or even more so, a child, to come to you on its own accord.

[sirgonzo420]

God is omniscient- he knows EVERYTHING. I know that we have freewill because:

1. The characteristic of His omniscience allows Him to know these things.
2. He tells us we have freewill. What God says, He does.

dys


But to believe that requires faith in God. Most men have faith only in themselves. That's been the problem since the Fruit.


Why did God put the fruit there when he KNEW Eve would eat it? (actually, he designed her to)

And then everyone else gets blamed for it?

Little babies are born in sin because some wench ate some fruit?

WTF kind of God is that?

[Phoenix]

Think of the world as a movie playing out....

God has the script; he KNOWS the outcome, and every single one of the scenes along the way, right?

Men are merely actors... the characters they play may seem to have free will, but they are bound to adhere to predefined boundaries; the die was cast before Creation - the story is already written in stone.


You are making the liberal's error: you are defining "free will" as man's ability to be something other than man. "Free will" for men involves the choice to do anything a man can do. Obviously, we are not gods, able to become animals or Superman.




There is no logical way to reconcile the notion of TRUE FREE WILL with DIVINE PREDESTINATION.


I would propose that the error lies in what you believe is "logic," and not in the harmony between God's Plan and man's free will.

[I am me, I am free]

Given your track record, I really should have known better than to have reasonably expected any response from you regarding these questions. lol


I challenge you to PROVE you drive around without a license, drive around without a real license plate, and successfully refuse to - without consequence - paying all the taxes the government demands of you.

Your refusal to provide this proof is taken as an admission you are LYING about doing so.


So...is this umpteenth re-post your admission that you're an imbecile??


Every time you refuse, you are exposed as the LIAR you are.


And every time you repeat your asinine demand that I provide my own personal info you re-assert that you're an imbecile - imo. lol

[Phoenix]

Why did God put the fruit there when he KNEW Eve would eat it? (actually, he designed her to)


If you knew your son would fall for a girl, and knew that she would break his heart, would you try to stop it? Or would you allow him free choice to experience what all human males do?




And then everyone else gets blamed for it?


Not exactly. Our ultimate parents were offered paradise in exchange for following a simple rule. They broke the rule. We don't get paradise, yet, because of their choice.

If a man works in the chemical industry, and bears children with birth defects, it's not the kids' fault, but they suffer nonetheless. If a rich man blows all his wealth in gambling, and his children live in poverty for the rest of their lives, again, not their fault, but they suffer nonetheless.




Little babies are born in sin because some wench ate some fruit?


Nope. Babies who die go to Heaven. Not until we achieve true self-awareness are we responsible for our own actions.




WTF kind of God is that?


The one that you imagine in your head.

[Skirnir]

What joy is there in having preprogrammed toy "love" you? So much better to have a pet, or even more so, a child, to come to you on its own accord.


Love is nonsense to begin with; it is a trick nature plays to bring reproduction.

[Phoenix]

And every time you repeat your asinine demand that I provide my own personal info you re-assert that you're an imbecile - imo. lol


I ask for PROOF of your asinine assertions.

Everyone knows you're lying; I only gave you the benefit of the very tiny doubt.

[sirgonzo420]

Think of the world as a movie playing out....

God has the script; he KNOWS the outcome, and every single one of the scenes along the way, right?

Men are merely actors... the characters they play may seem to have free will, but they are bound to adhere to predefined boundaries; the die was cast before Creation - the story is already written in stone.


You are making the liberal's error: you are defining "free will" as man's ability to be something other than man. "Free will" for men involves the choice to do anything a man can do. Obviously, we are not gods, able to become animals or Superman.




There is no logical way to reconcile the notion of TRUE FREE WILL with DIVINE PREDESTINATION.


I would propose that the error lies in what you believe is "logic," and not in the harmony between God's Plan and man's free will.


No, I'm not making a "liberal's error"....

If a man has a "choice", and God already know what choice he will make before that man is even born, how in the world can that be freewill?

You aren't really choosing if you are doing what God already has preordained you to do... it's not *your* free will, it's God's (unchanging) will.

[Phoenix]

What joy is there in having preprogrammed toy "love" you? So much better to have a pet, or even more so, a child, to come to you on its own accord.


Love is nonsense to begin with; it is a trick nature plays to bring reproduction.


My wish for you is that one day you will understand love is not merely an illusion.

That is a sincere wish.

[Phoenix]

No, I'm not making a "liberal's error"....

If a man has a "choice", and God already know what choice he will make before that man is even born, how in the world can that be freewill?

You aren't really choosing if you are doing what God already has preordained you to do... it's not *your* free will, it's God's (unchanging) will.


You will believe what you wish to believe.

I can't help you understand any more than I have. Only God can do that, if you are ever ready to accept it.

[sirgonzo420]

Why did God put the fruit there when he KNEW Eve would eat it? (actually, he designed her to)


If you knew your son would fall for a girl, and knew that she would break his heart, would you try to stop it? Or would you allow him free choice to experience what all human males do?




And then everyone else gets blamed for it?


Not exactly. Our ultimate parents were offered paradise in exchange for following a simple rule. They broke the rule. We don't get paradise, yet, because of their choice.

If a man works in the chemical industry, and bears children with birth defects, it's not the kids' fault, but they suffer nonetheless. If a rich man blows all his wealth in gambling, and his children live in poverty for the rest of their lives, again, not their fault, but they suffer nonetheless.




Little babies are born in sin because some wench ate some fruit?


Nope. Babies who die go to Heaven. Not until we achieve true self-awareness are we responsible for our own actions.




WTF kind of God is that?


The one that you imagine in your head.


Regarding the son/girlfriend argument, I couldn't KNOW with the precision that God knows something.

The gap between God and Man is much greater than between Father and Son.


Ok, but since Adam and Eve ate the fruit, everyone born after is sentenced to eternity in a lake of fire upon reaching the age of accountability absent some "salvation", which is only obtained "by grace, through faith", which means that faith alone is not enough to obtain salvation - the "grace of God" is required (and grace, by definition, is undeserved, and is given not to everybody but only to certain ones according to the whims of God).

One cannot "choose" salvation - it is up to God - Man be damned.

[dysgenic]

I don't know anything about 'the notion of divine predestination'. How can I? How can any of us? We are created beings. God is eternal.

dys







If God (as in, the biblical character) knows exactly everything that you will do before you do it, how do you have free will, and not just an illusion of free will?

"Predestination"/"an all-knowing God" seem to be irreconcilable with the notion of true "free will".


Absolutely not. God is not like men, changing according to what they learn.


Think of the world as a movie playing out....

God has the script; he KNOWS the outcome, and every single one of the scenes along the way, right?

Men are merely actors... the characters they play may seem to have free will, but they are bound to adhere to predefined boundaries; the die was cast before Creation - the story is already written in stone.

There is no logical way to reconcile the notion of TRUE FREE WILL with DIVINE PREDESTINATION.

[sirgonzo420]

I don't know anything about 'the notion of divine predestination'. How can I? How can any of us? We are created beings. God is eternal.

dys



To distill it down to the essence of my problem with "free will versus an omniscient God":

You make a "choice" to wear white socks instead of black socks.

God KNEW that you were gonna "choose" white socks (he even knew the exact time that you would make said "choice"!) before you, or your parents were even born.

So, given that a Higher Power already KNOWS your "choices" in advance, how can you say that it was honestly and truly *your* choice?

It's an illusion of free will, not actual free will - kinda like how the plants and animals in the Garden of Eden at the time of Creation had the appearance and illusion of age (if someone saw Adam right after he were created, that someone would presumably see an adult man, who appeared to be YEARS old instead of just a few nanoseconds old).

[I am me, I am free]

And every time you repeat your asinine demand that I provide my own personal info you re-assert that you're an imbecile - imo. lol


I ask for PROOF of your asinine assertions.

Everyone knows you're lying; I only gave you the benefit of the very tiny doubt.


I'm guessing it's not occurred to you how moronic it sounds for you to keep pestering me to prove a negative (i.e. that I do NOT have a DRIVER LICENSE, that I do NOT have automobile registration [if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records], that I do NOT do this, or I do NOT do that). lol

[7th trump]

And every time you repeat your asinine demand that I provide my own personal info you re-assert that you're an imbecile - imo. lol


I ask for PROOF of your asinine assertions.

Everyone knows you're lying; I only gave you the benefit of the very tiny doubt.


I'm guessing it's not occurred to you how moronic it sounds for you to keep pestering me to prove a negative (i.e. that I do NOT have a DRIVER LICENSE, that I do NOT have automobile registration [if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records], that I do NOT do this, or I do NOT do that). lol

Isnt that funny about phoenix?
I mean he wanted to see court cases where a someone won a suit against the government for not getting a ssn.
Geee..............why would the government sue you for not getting a ssn when the Act itself has no mandatory participation clause. Theres no statute nor law on any books requiring anybody to get one and the SSA sends letters to people inquiring about the ssn and they themselves state that a ssn is not required to live or work in America. And they state that without a ssn you cannot have an account to credit for benefits.
Wheres the logic in phoenix wanting to see a court case when none would ever exist in the first place.
His logic is if there is no court case then it must be true everyone must have a ssn.

[Phoenix]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.

[I am me, I am free]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.

In order for an automobile to be 'registered' initially the buyer (or the new car dealer usually does it for the buyer if the buyer is a RESIDENT of that STATE) must make an application for CERTIFICATE OF TITLE to the state DMV (or whatever dept. for the respective state). Making/submitting an application for CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (which document is NOT 'title', it's CERTIFICATE stating there's a title...somewhere, but this is not it - if the document the state issued was in fact a 'title' then it would state such on the face of the document...it doesn't..."the terms title and interest are not synonymous" --Black's 4th) entails 'delivering' (means surrender) the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE to the state. I went 'round and 'round with TxDOT concerning getting a state tag for the automobile I purchased new in another state. They refused to accept a certified copy of the MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE when I offered that instead of the original. They definitely wanted the original, no ifs, ands, or buts. I talked to three different bureaurats with TxDOT and the three told me the MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE was three different things: 1) the evidence of ownership of the automobile; 2) the 'birth certificate' for the automobile; and 3) the negotiable instrument representing the automobile. All three were correct, they just each had a different way of expressing it.

So no, no application was ever made for 'registration' and I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE as well as an ironclad, bombproof Bill of Sale I had the owner of the dealership sign - strong enough that you should have heard the owner's son call me back all contrite and start stuttering as he apologized for his earlier comments to me after his attorn-ey clued him in (as a matter of fact I got into a conversation with him regarding not having ever registered the automobile and he tried to tell me that the manufacturer still owned it, i.e. until he saw the document and I called his notary up getting a confirmation of her notarization).

[chad]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.

In order for an automobile to be 'registered' initially the buyer (or the new car dealer usually does it for the buyer if the buyer is a RESIDENT of that STATE) must make an application for CERTIFICATE OF TITLE to the state DMV (or whatever dept. for the respective state). Making/submitting an application for CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (which document is NOT 'title', it's CERTIFICATE stating there's a title...somewhere, but this is not it - if the document the state issued was in fact a 'title' then it would state such on the face of the document...it doesn't..."the terms title and interest are not synonymous" --Black's 4th) entails 'delivering' (means surrender) the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE to the state. I went 'round and 'round with TxDOT concerning getting a state tag for the automobile I purchased new in another state. They refused to accept a certified copy of the MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE when I offered that instead of the original. They definitely wanted the original, no ifs, ands, or buts. I thanked to three different bureaurats with TxDOT and the three told me the MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE was three different things: 1) the evidence of ownership of the automobile; 2) the 'birth certificate' for the automobile; and 3) the negotiable instrument representing the automobile. All three were correct, they just each had a different way of expressing it.

So no, no application was ever made for 'registration' and I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE as well as an ironclad, bombproof Bill of Sale I had the owner of the dealership sign - strong enough that you should have heard the owner's son call me back all contrite and start stuttering as he apologized for his earlier comments to me after his attorn-ey clued him in (as a matter of fact I got into a conversation with him regarding not having ever registered the automobile and he tried to tell me that the manufacturer still owned it, i.e. until he saw the document and I called his notary up getting a confirmation of her notarization).


i have an automobile dealer's license. this is correct. you are under no obligation to issue a title if you sell a new car. i've sold a motorhome, 2 motorcycles, and 1 car and have just given people the MSO instead of applying for a title. some people have no inclination to ever operate the vehicle in the manner in which it was intended. it is very common in the collector world for vehicles to be sold with MSOs only, as it represents original ownership in it's purest form.

i don't know if this is true the world over, but in wisconsin, it certainly is.

[I am me, I am free]

i have an automobile dealer's license. this is correct. you are under no obligation to issue a title if you sell a new car. i've sold a motorhome, 2 motorcycles, and 1 car and have just given people the MSO instead of applying for a title. some people have no inclination to ever operate the vehicle in the manner in which it was intended. it is very common in the collector world for vehicles to be sold with MSOs only, as it represents original ownership in it's purest form.

i don't know if this is true the world over, but in wisconsin, it certainly is.



Cannot speak for other states, but in Texas any vehicle dealers don't have a 'license' per se, the statute calls it a 'unique identifying number' (or some such) but it's essentially a license (the statute says nothing about a 'license' to sell automobiles). And in Texas a dealer can lose this 'license' if they sell an automobile to a RESIDENT of the STATE OF TEXAS and don't render the MSO (aka MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE as it's referred to the the Texas Transportation Code) to TxDOT. Before I went out of state to buy a new automobile I was feeling out local dealers. I walked into a large Ford dealership and told one of their salesman, "I want that car right there, I'll pay cash right now. The deal-killer is that I MUST have the MSO." The salesman had this blank look on his face as he replied, "What's a MSO?" I told him his sales manager knows, let's go talk to him. He walked into the sales manager office and told him of the pending for sure cash sale contingent upon the release of the MSO to me. The sales mgr. looked up from what he was working on, listened to his salesman, then looked at me and said, "Get out of here, we're not interested in your business." lol

That's how important the rendering of private property to the state is - serious business, serious enough that a dealer won't risk losing their 'license' over it.

[chad]

from what i've felt out with the dot here, the main reason for wanting the MSO is that from that point on, the vehicle can be controlled and taxed. if you don't have a title and just keep passing the MSO around, it can be sold dozens of times without 1 cent of tax ever being paid on it should people decide not to declare it. at least that's what my dot guy told me off the record. maybe he was bullshitting me, who knows. :P

[iOWNme]

I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.


Please tell me how there will be a Peace Treaty signed WHEN THERE IS NO DECLARATION OF WAR? (Even Lincoln NEVER referred to the war as a 'Civil War', he always called it an insurrection, rebellion. The Union never issued a Congressional declaration of War on the South)

And in current wars the men and woman in the Military have been duped. You cannot by Law sign a Peace Treaty when there has been no Lawful Declaration of War. Its a nifty little trick that it used to make sure endless amounts of American men, woman and children continue to spill and give their own blood in exchange for the 'Illusion' of Freedom, while in reality helping to enslave the rest of the world to same fate.

This is exactly why the US CON says only Congress can declare War. They knew what Acts, Proclamations, Decree's, Resolutions and whatever else you want to call it, left the war time on a never ending time line...

[Fortyone]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.

[Fortyone]

I used to believe that information was the commodity with the power to turn the tables. Get the information out there to enough people, and the system collapses along with its credibility. But I don't believe that anymore.

There is a science called Root Cause Analysis. Essentially until you determine the root cause of a problem it is going to keep re-occurring. In the case of law the root cause of the problems we are seeing is the (un)civil war. It has never been settled. I have an idea that within the next several years it will end up with a peace treaty because the rest of the world is getting tired of the U.S. problem.

Wars nowadays take hundreds of years to resolve. The Napoleonic wars resulted in WWI and were resolved with a peace treaty in Paris in 1990. The only motivation for a peace treaty then was to rejoin the two Germanys. The U.S. (un)civil [actually it was an international] war has run its' course. There has been no Article III courts in existence since 1861. File an Article III case with the Supreme Court and it sits there until the war is settled.



You speak of a treaty ending the civil war, How can you have a treaty signed by both parties when the other nation doesnt exist any longer? The peace treaty ending WWI as far as Germany concerned,was in Versailles. Dont blather with hogwash either,Adolf Hitler even recognized that Versailles was the official end to it,as he forced the French to sign in the same spot in 1940. Your 1990 treaty wasnt a peace treaty ending anything,That treaty was concerning conventional forces in post USSR Europe,and did include German reuification, but was not the main article.

[palani]

Please tell me how there will be a Peace Treaty signed WHEN THERE IS NO DECLARATION OF WAR? (Even Lincoln NEVER referred to the war as a 'Civil War', he always called it an insurrection, rebellion)

And in current wars the men and woman in the Military have been duped. You cannot by Law sign a Peace Treaty when there has been no Lawful Declaration of War. Its a nifty little trick that it used to make sure endless amounts of American men, woman and children continue to spill and give their own blood in exchange for the 'Illusion' of Freedom, while in reality helping to enslave the rest of the world to same fate.

Possibly I erred in the location (Moscow rather than Paris) and they appear to not even call it a peace treaty but that is actually what it is.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
Here is the text.

Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
September 12, 1990



The Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America,

Conscious of the fact that their peoples have been living together in peace since 1945;

Mindful of the recent historic changes in Europe which make it possible to overcome the division of the continent;

Having regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, and the corresponding wartime and post-war agreements and decisions of the Four Powers;

Resolved, in accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Recalling the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki;

Recognizing that those principles have laid firm foundations for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe;

Determined to take account of everyone's security interests;

Convinced of the need finally to overcome antagonism and to develop cooperation in Europe;

Confirming their readiness to reinforce security, in particular by adopting effective arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures; their willingness not to regard each other as adversaries but to work for a relationship of trust and cooperation; and accordingly their readiness to consider positively setting up appropriate institutional arrangements within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;

Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a united Europe;

Convinced that the unification of Germany as a state with definitive borders is a significant contribution to peace and stability in Europe;

Intending to conclude the final settlement with respect to Germany;

Recognizing that thereby, and with the unification of Germany as a democratic and peaceful state, the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole lose their function;

Represented by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs who, in accordance with the Ottawa Declaration of 13 February 1990, met in Bonn on 5 May 1990, in Berlin on 22 June 1990, in Paris on 17 July 1990 with the participation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, and in Moscow on 12 September 1990;

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1

(1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe.

(2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law.

(3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.

(4) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

(5) The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take formal note of the corresponding commitments and declarations by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and declare that their implementation will confirm the definitive nature of the united Germany's borders.

ARTICLE 2

The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their declarations that only peace will emanate from German soil. According to the constitution of the united Germany, acts tending to and undertaken with the intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional and a punishable offence. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic declare that the united Germany will never employ any of its weapons except in accordance with its constitution and the Charter of the United Nations.

ARTICLE 3

(1) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.

(2) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in full agreement with the Government of the German Democratic Republic, made the following statement on 30 August 1990 in Vienna at the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject to the Negotations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a signficant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strengths.

The Government of the German Democratic Republic has expressly associated itself with this statement.

(3) The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take note of these statements by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

ARTICLE 4

(1) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics state that the united Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will settle by treaty the conditions for and the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces on the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, as well as the conduct of the withdrawal of these armed forces which will be completed by the end of 1994, in connection with the implementation of the undertaking of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the present Treaty.

(2) The Governments of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take note of this statement.

ARTICLE 5

(1) Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces for the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there.

(2) For the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces in the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, armed forces of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will, upon German request, remain stationed in Berlin by agreement to this effect between the Government of the united Germany and the Govenments of the states concerned. The number of troops and the amount of equipment of all non-German armed forces stationed in Berlin will not be greater than at the time of signature of the present Treaty. New categories of weapons will not be introduced there by non-German armed forces. The Government of the united Germany will conclude with the Governments of those states which have armed forces stationed in Berlin treaties with conditions which are fair taking account of the relations existing with the states concerned.

(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.

ARTICLE 6

The right of the united Germany to belong to alliances, with all the rights and responsibilities arising therefrom, shall not be affected by the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 7

(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.

(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.

ARTICLE 8

(1) The present Treaty is subject to ratification or acceptance as soon as possible. On the German side it will be ratified by the united Germany. The Treaty will therefore apply to the united Germany.

(2) The instruments of ratification or acceptance shall be deposited with the Government of the united Germany. That Government shall inform the Governments of the other Contracting Parties of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or acceptance.

ARTICLE 9

The present Treaty shall enter into force for the united Germany, the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance by these states.

ARTICLE 10

The original of the present Treaty, of which the English, French, German and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, which shall transmit certified true copies to the Governments of the other Contracting Parties.

Source: American Foreign Policy Current Documents 1990. Department of State, Washington, 1991.

[palani]

You speak of a treaty ending the civil war, How can you have a treaty signed by both parties when the other nation doesnt exist any longer? The peace treaty ending WWI as far as Germany concerned,was in Versailles. Dont blather with hogwash either,Adolf Hitler even recognized that Versailles was the official end to it,as he forced the French to sign in the same spot in 1940. Your 1990 treaty wasnt a peace treaty ending anything,That treaty was concerning conventional forces in post USSR Europe,and did include German reuification, but was not the main article.

Using your logic how can you enter into ANY peace treaty when one side has completely destroyed its opponent?

I wouldn't accept any of my observations as facts either. I was not present at the start of the (un)civil war but do hope to be there at its conclusion. As I have not observed any of these events I cannot attest to them as facts. Therefore they exist as observations only subject to your own verification.

I will attest to the observation that many of the wars presently engaged in are promoted by non-sovereign federations against nation-states that are sovereign. Generally speaking if there is a unified conflict being promoted in the world today it is against sovereign countries. Just so there is no mistaking terms, my definition of sovereign means responsible. Federations that exist in the world today are completely irresponsible.

[Phoenix]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.


In this state, and many others (maybe not Texas, but I imagine it is so there, as well), the dealer has a Certificate of Title, which is then placed in "your name" after sale.



I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE


Scan it and post it here...black out the unique identifiers, even, and I'll still give you credit.

[Fortyone]

You speak of a treaty ending the civil war, How can you have a treaty signed by both parties when the other nation doesnt exist any longer? The peace treaty ending WWI as far as Germany concerned,was in Versailles. Dont blather with hogwash either,Adolf Hitler even recognized that Versailles was the official end to it,as he forced the French to sign in the same spot in 1940. Your 1990 treaty wasnt a peace treaty ending anything,That treaty was concerning conventional forces in post USSR Europe,and did include German reuification, but was not the main article.

Using your logic how can you enter into ANY peace treaty when one side has completely destroyed its opponent?

I wouldn't accept any of my observations as facts either. I was not present at the start of the (un)civil war but do hope to be there at its conclusion. As I have not observed any of these events I cannot attest to them as facts. Therefore they exist as observations only subject to your own verification.

I will attest to the observation that many of the wars presently engaged in are promoted by non-sovereign federations against nation-states that are sovereign. Generally speaking if there is a unified conflict being promoted in the world today it is against sovereign countries. Just so there is no mistaking terms, my definition of sovereign means responsible. Federations that exist in the world today are completely irresponsible.


I respect your statement. The treaty your speaking of isnt a Peace treaty as it ends nothing. This treaty is between the victorious powers and the two successor Governments of Germany (obviously the Reich wasnt around to sign anything) ending the mandated occupation zones,and unification of the country under one government.There was no actual peace treaty between the Reich and the Allies,Germany signed a "Instrument of Surrender" at Rheims and Berlin.but what you posted above does not qualify as a Peace treaty. there simply wasnt one.

[iOWNme]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.


In this state, and many others (maybe not Texas, but I imagine it is so there, as well), the dealer has a Certificate of Title, which is then placed in "your name" after sale.



I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE


Scan it and post it here...black out the unique identifiers, even, and I'll still give you credit.



What he is talking about is an MCO = Manufacturer Certificate of Origin.

http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Vehicle/Titling/ManufacturersCertificateofOrigin.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%E2%80%99s_Certificate_of_Origin

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Lvk&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Manufacturer+certificate+of+origin+for+cars&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[7th trump]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.


In this state, and many others (maybe not Texas, but I imagine it is so there, as well), the dealer has a Certificate of Title, which is then placed in "your name" after sale.



I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE


Scan it and post it here...black out the unique identifiers, even, and I'll still give you credit.



What he is talking about is an MCO = Manufacturer Certificate of Origin.

http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Vehicle/Titling/ManufacturersCertificateofOrigin.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%E2%80%99s_Certificate_of_Origin

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Lvk&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Manufacturer+certificate+of+origin+for+cars&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I know someone who has the MCO for a quad runner and no title.

[Phoenix]

As I figured...


Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 502.002

REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE. (a) The owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for:

(1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and

(2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year.

(b) The application must be made to the department through the county assessor-collector of the county in which the owner resides.

(c) A provision of this chapter that conflicts with this section prevails over this section to the extent of the conflict.

(d) A county assessor-collector, a deputy county assessor-collector, or a person acting on behalf of a county assessor-collector is not liable to any person for:

(1) refusing to register a motor vehicle because of the person's failure to submit evidence of residency that complies with the department's rules; or

(2) registering a motor vehicle under this section.


No exemption for (allegedly) holding a Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin.

I am Me, I am Free, is there anything about "the law" that you don't lie about?

[palani]

I respect your statement. The treaty your speaking of isnt a Peace treaty as it ends nothing. This treaty is between the victorious powers and the two successor Governments of Germany (obviously the Reich wasnt around to sign anything) ending the mandated occupation zones,and unification of the country under one government.There was no actual peace treaty between the Reich and the Allies,Germany signed a "Instrument of Surrender" at Rheims and Berlin.but what you posted above does not qualify as a Peace treaty. there simply wasnt one.


So call it a quit claim deed. Evidently it transferred ownership (and sovereignty) back to Germany.

[I am me, I am free]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.


My automobile does indeed have a tag with a number issued by an office of the STATE OF TEXAS (but not TxDOT). It is in fact an automobile and not a 'vehicle' of any kind, and I'm not an 'operator', i.e. I'm not operating in commerce/using public property to engage in the business of transportation. Insurance companies only write policies for legal fictions, e.g. a RESIDENT.

[I am me, I am free]

from what i've felt out with the dot here, the main reason for wanting the MSO is that from that point on, the vehicle can be controlled and taxed. if you don't have a title and just keep passing the MSO around, it can be sold dozens of times without 1 cent of tax ever being paid on it should people decide not to declare it. at least that's what my dot guy told me off the record. maybe he was bullsh*tting me, who knows. :P


The bureaurat you spoke with is kept mostly in the dark, i.e. he's told by his superiors the licensing/registration scheme is all about the revenue stream, and yes, it largely is. But ultimately it's about depriving the people of ownership of their private property (including their rights) and all the ramifications of that. That and control.

[Fortyone]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.


My automobile does indeed have a tag with a number issued by an office of the STATE OF TEXAS (but not TxDOT). It is in fact an automobile and not a 'vehicle' of any kind, and I'm not an 'operator', i.e. I'm not operating in commerce/using public property to engage in the business of transportation. Insurance companies only write policies for legal fictions, e.g. a RESIDENT.



If involved in an accident, you would have no insurance coverage then? risky

[Phoenix]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.


Texas Transportation Code

601.051. REQUIREMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:

(1) a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that complies with Subchapter D;

(2) a surety bond filed under Section 601.121;

(3) a deposit under Section 601.122;

(4) a deposit under Section 601.123; or

(5) self-insurance under Section 601.124.

[Phoenix]

What he is talking about is an MCO = Manufacturer Certificate of Origin.

http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Vehicle/Titling/ManufacturersCertificateofOrigin.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%E2%80%99s_Certificate_of_Origin

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Lvk&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Manufacturer+certificate+of+origin+for+cars&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=


I know what he is talking about, also sometimes called an MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin).

I don't believe he possesses it.

[I am me, I am free]

if the automobile has never been 'registered' then obviously it's not going to show in any DMV records


ALL automobiles have been registered at least once. Give us the VIN, so we can prove you're telling the truth.


See, this is a perfect example of you being cocky thinking you know it all when you don't. In this case you don't know jack schidt.


In this state, and many others (maybe not Texas, but I imagine it is so there, as well), the dealer has a Certificate of Title, which is then placed in "your name" after sale.



I still hold the *original* MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATE


Scan it and post it here...black out the unique identifiers, even, and I'll still give you credit.



Wrong again. Big surprise. lol

The document every dealer in the USA holds at their dealership (or their bank is holding it) for any NEW automobile is the MSO/MCO - doesn't matter whether the car was imported or manufactured domestically. Dealers will sell a car out of their inventory to another dealer with the MSO/MCO. There are 4 or 5 places on the back of the MSO/MCO for up to that many transfers between NEW car dealers. I have no idea what they do with the MSO/MCO once all of those spaces get filled in and a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE has still not been issued by the state. Perhaps Chad can tell us.

The state DOT does not issue a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE until there has been a 'first sale' to a retail buyer (one who is usually taxed on the sale whereas dealers making transfers among themselves on the MSO/MCO are not) and that retail buyer submits an application for a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (often the new car dealer 'will conveniently take care of those matters for you' if you pay cash, and if the car is financed then the process is automatic since the loan is based on the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE).

So essentially the ONLY 'dealers' who have the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on a car has it on a USED car, not a NEW car. New cars which have never been subject to a 'first sale' ONLY have a MSO/MCO.

And scanning my MCO for you?? Not a chance, you'll just say it was a color photocopy. lol (yes, I have a couple of those too) I have no need of your 'credit'. lol

[Phoenix]

My automobile does indeed have a tag with a number issued by an office of the STATE OF TEXAS (but not TxDOT).


Yeah, probably by the DPS, because you're a cop? (trying to ferret out suckers by gaining their confidence)

WHICH department, if not DPS?




It is in fact an automobile and not a 'vehicle' of any kind, and I'm not an 'operator', i.e. I'm not operating in commerce/using public property to engage in the business of transportation. Insurance companies only write policies for legal fictions, e.g. a RESIDENT.


Texas Transportation Code 502.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(2) "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, designed or used primarily to transport property. The term includes a passenger car reconstructed and used primarily for delivery purposes. The term does not include a passenger car used to deliver the United States mail.

(13) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled.

(17) "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, golf cart, light truck, or bus, designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons.

(24) "Vehicle" means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

[Phoenix]

And scanning my MCO for you?? Not a chance...


...because I don't have one.

[palani]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.


Texas Transportation Code

601.051. REQUIREMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:

(1) a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that complies with Subchapter D;

(2) a surety bond filed under Section 601.121;

(3) a deposit under Section 601.122;

(4) a deposit under Section 601.123; or

(5) self-insurance under Section 601.124.


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.601.htm

You DO understand that most of that code has applicability under "this state" aka the federal zone that overlays the constitutional State of Texas? Your code has NO applicability in The State of Texas even though it was crafted (very craftily I might add) by the Texas legislature (may their treasonous carcasses eventually decorate the tallest oak trees).

Your use of "this state" and your abbreviation TX means you know of and subscribe to this treasonous subterfuge.

[I am me, I am free]

As I figured...


Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 502.002

REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE. (a) The owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for:

(1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and

(2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year.

(b) The application must be made to the department through the county assessor-collector of the county in which the owner resides.

(c) A provision of this chapter that conflicts with this section prevails over this section to the extent of the conflict.

(d) A county assessor-collector, a deputy county assessor-collector, or a person acting on behalf of a county assessor-collector is not liable to any person for:

(1) refusing to register a motor vehicle because of the person's failure to submit evidence of residency that complies with the department's rules; or

(2) registering a motor vehicle under this section.


No exemption for (allegedly) holding a Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin.

I am Me, I am Free, is there anything about "the law" that you don't lie about?


What you can't seem to grasp for some reason is that I don't own a 'motor vehicle' I own an automobile. lol

And I'm neither 'the state' nor 'a political subdivision of the state'. Obtaining a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is a prerequisite to 'registration'.

Tell me how Chapter 501 (aka THE CERTIFICATE TITLE ACT) of the Texas Transportation Code applies to me (refer to 'Applicability' at Section 501.004) - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.501.htm

[I am me, I am free]

I have one question, do you carry liability insurance on the car?I know most states require it to operate the vehicle on public highways,If yes, how did you obtain it with no title?,If not, do you travel much outside of TX in the car?The reason I ask that, is Im sure a LEO would notice a no-tag car and pull it over.


My automobile does indeed have a tag with a number issued by an office of the STATE OF TEXAS (but not TxDOT). It is in fact an automobile and not a 'vehicle' of any kind, and I'm not an 'operator', i.e. I'm not operating in commerce/using public property to engage in the business of transportation. Insurance companies only write policies for legal fictions, e.g. a RESIDENT.



If involved in an accident, you would have no insurance coverage then? risky


Not a concern, there's a remedy in the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

[I am me, I am free]

My automobile does indeed have a tag with a number issued by an office of the STATE OF TEXAS (but not TxDOT).


Yeah, probably by the DPS, because you're a cop? (trying to ferret out suckers by gaining their confidence)

WHICH department, if not DPS?




It is in fact an automobile and not a 'vehicle' of any kind, and I'm not an 'operator', i.e. I'm not operating in commerce/using public property to engage in the business of transportation. Insurance companies only write policies for legal fictions, e.g. a RESIDENT.


Texas Transportation Code 502.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(2) "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, designed or used primarily to transport property. The term includes a passenger car reconstructed and used primarily for delivery purposes. The term does not include a passenger car used to deliver the United States mail.

(13) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled.

(17) "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, golf cart, light truck, or bus, designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons.

(24) "Vehicle" means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.




You STILL don't get it - EVERY cite you posted is loaded with words referring to commerce. lol

And as far as my personal info, you aren't getting ANY. Except to say that the 'unique identifying number' on my tag does not come from any law enforcement agency. Let's just say it's 'environmental' or maybe 'agricultural' or maybe let's just not say.

[Fortyone]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.

[I am me, I am free]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.


Makes absolutely NO difference to me whether you subscribe to it or not. Do you own thing - I am.

[Phoenix]

What you can't seem to grasp for some reason is that I don't own a 'motor vehicle' I own an automobile.


Oh, I do...I grasp that you LIE - obfuscate and argue sophistically - as readily and as artistically as Bill Clinton.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[Fortyone]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.


Makes absolutely NO difference to me whether you subscribe to it or not. Do you own thing - I am.


but can you cite a case concerning this with a victory by the individual? Im not trying to argue, just want the facts.

[Phoenix]

If involved in an accident, you would have no insurance coverage then? risky


Not a concern, there's a remedy in the Texas Business and Commerce Code.


I am Me, I am Free would vomit out some "sovereign citizen" crap to the poor SOB whose car he just wrecked, stating that he is "not liable" for the damage he caused since he didn't "didn't engage in commerce per the UCC" or some utter bullshit like that.

[Phoenix]

but can you cite a case concerning this with a victory by the individual? Im not trying to argue, just want the facts.


You - and I - want the facts. I am Me, I am Free and fellow cultists, do not.

He will not answer. He'll puke out some crap at you, claiming you're "serving the beast" by pointing out he's doing nothing but LYING.

[sirgonzo420]

What you can't seem to grasp for some reason is that I don't own a 'motor vehicle' I own an automobile.


Oh, I do...I grasp that you LIE - obfuscate and argue sophistically - as readily and as artistically as Bill Clinton.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."



The attorn-eys who craft the statutes are the ones who use sophistry.

Ever really read through Title 26?

Ever read through an old law dictionary?

They try to make statutes look like they apply in ways that they do not.

Once cannot be both ignorant and free.

[7th trump]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.

All depends who the state looks at you. You are either a federal US citizen or a state citizen.
This taken from a former police officer website state-citizen.org

The Importance Of state Citizenship


The rules that apply to "US citizens" may be different than the rules that apply to "state Citizens", and that the rights of one are not the same as the other. For example, the "state Citizen" is NOT required to have a driver license to legally use their car to go to the store to buy food or to attend their place of worship, the "US citizen" is required to have a license to do the same thing.



“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

[Phoenix]

The attorn-eys who craft the statutes are the ones who use sophistry.


Arguing that "motor vehicle" and "automobile" are not effective synonyms is pure Jewjitsu.




Ever really read through Title 26?

Ever read through an old law dictionary?

They try to make statutes look like they apply in ways that they do not.


I have no use for their "law," since I believe true law must be plain language, and understandable by the average man or woman. For example, "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it appears to. Further, I know that their "law" is for us, not for them. If their "law" can be ignored, great. But I find repugnant when someone claims you can magically circumvent their "law" with delusional theories; this serves no purpose other than to offer personal gain for the peddler, at the expense of the poor sap who extends his "confidence" to the con-man peddling it.

You can avoid paying taxes in one way only: cash only, or barter. Make your transactions non-traceable. If I am Me, I am Free were to be pushing that as a modus operandi, I'd be giving him an applause every hour. But he's not doing that; instead, he's pushing demonstrably false, "sophisticated" (i.e., relating to sophistry) theories that are pure danger to someone gullible enough to follow them. I know some people don't give a sh*t about their fellow man, and vomit out "DYODD" like that relieves them of the moral responsibility not to spread attractive lies, but that's not me: I'll call bullsh*t whenever I see it.




Once cannot be both ignorant and free.


I would propose that someone who tries these "sovereign citizen" theories, and actually believes they work, is among the most ignorant of our society.

Recognition of danger and certain defeat is among the components of wisdom.

[Fortyone]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.

All depends who the state looks at you. You are either a federal US citizen or a state citizen.
This taken from a former police officer website state-citizen.org

The Importance Of state Citizenship


The rules that apply to "US citizens" may be different than the rules that apply to "state Citizens", and that the rights of one are not the same as the other. For example, the "state Citizen" is NOT required to have a driver license to legally use their car to go to the store to buy food or to attend their place of worship, the "US citizen" is required to have a license to do the same thing.



“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)


Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1

[I am me, I am free]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.


Makes absolutely NO difference to me whether you subscribe to it or not. Do you own thing - I am.


but can you cite a case concerning this with a victory by the individual? Im not trying to argue, just want the facts.


If you ever get into doing your own research you'll discover that the courts NEVER allow 'wins' by those wanting to be free to get published - one way or another, it just doesn't happen.

[Fortyone]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.


Makes absolutely NO difference to me whether you subscribe to it or not. Do you own thing - I am.


but can you cite a case concerning this with a victory by the individual? Im not trying to argue, just want the facts.


If you ever get into doing your own research you'll discover that the courts NEVER allow 'wins' by those wanting to be free to get published - one way or another, it just doesn't happen.


Have you ever been arrested or pulled over by LEO for this activity? If so what were the results?

[palani]

Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1

I corrected your post as quoted to show "this state" written in state code as THE FEDERAL ZONE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

If you don't know who you are and where you are then don't even bother to show up BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.

[I am me, I am free]

Im sorry, I just cant subscribe to the notion of driving around in a non-plated "automobile" with no drivers license,no insurance, and not getting constantly being pulled over by LEO.And Ill add that, you'd be constantly in court defending your rights on the matter. I have been pulled over driving with no license on person,on an untagged,uninsured car. i was put in jail and fined. If it were that easy everyone would ignore the regulations. Highways are paid for by road use taxes and vehicle registrations,basically tolls. Thats why court rulings always use the term "Privilege". I challenge you to produce one court example where a person won this type of case.

All depends who the state looks at you. You are either a federal US citizen or a state citizen.
This taken from a former police officer website state-citizen.org

The Importance Of state Citizenship


The rules that apply to "US citizens" may be different than the rules that apply to "state Citizens", and that the rights of one are not the same as the other. For example, the "state Citizen" is NOT required to have a driver license to legally use their car to go to the store to buy food or to attend their place of worship, the "US citizen" is required to have a license to do the same thing.



“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)


Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1


'Driver', 'person', 'operate', 'vehicle'...all commercial terms.

Try instead the non-commercial terms: Motorist, man/woman, travel, automobile...

[Ares]

I am me, I am free

There's no way to get the MSO once the vehicle has been paid off is there? Once its registered for title then it's registered for the life of the vehicle correct?

The reason I ask is that my vehicle is 5 months away from being paid off.

[I am me, I am free]

I am me, I am free

There's no way to get the MSO once the vehicle has been paid off is there? Once its registered for title then it's registered for the life of the vehicle correct?

The reason I ask is that my vehicle is 5 months away from being paid off.


You know, I was having a conversation with Howard Griswald about that since I have a conveyance I bought used, but got sidetracked. Once surrendered, you're never getting that MCO back. All you can do is establish your bona fide claim to the property (since the state views you as a 'beneficial owner' in a cestui que trust), and the remedy may be convoluted for you. If interested PM me and I will get you Howard's contact info.

[Fortyone]

Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1

I corrected your post as quoted to show "this state" written in state code as THE FEDERAL ZONE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

If you don't know who you are and where you are then don't even bother to show up BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Touchy? please show me where you got your info,There is no mention of Federal anything. heres the link to mine, The State of Louisiana

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88456


BTW Federal zone Within EXTERIOR???? that is an oxymoron!

[I am me, I am free]

Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1

I corrected your post as quoted to show "this state" written in state code as THE FEDERAL ZONE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

If you don't know who you are and where you are then don't even bother to show up BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Touchy? please show me where you got your info,There is no mention of Federal anything. heres the link to mine, The State of Louisiana

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88456


The STATE OF LOUISIANA is a legal fiction and a political subdivision of the federal corporation know as 'UNITED STATES', whereas Louisiana state is not.

[Fortyone]

Your interpretation of the law and political divisions has never been used in the US.

[palani]

Louisiana says you do,very plainly..... :oo-->

§52. Driver must be licensed

No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1

I corrected your post as quoted to show "this state" written in state code as THE FEDERAL ZONE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

If you don't know who you are and where you are then don't even bother to show up BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.


Touchy? please show me where you got your info,There is no mention of Federal anything. heres the link to mine, The State of Louisiana

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88456


BTW Federal zone Within EXTERIOR???? that is an oxymoron!


Not touchy. I am trying to tell you the phrase "this state" does not mean "the state". Things that you might take for granted or presume are your ERRORs.

From Washington State code


RCW 82.04.200
"In this state," "within this state."

"In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state.

From Wisconsin code

29.011(1)
(1) The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition, and conservation of these wild animals.

Texas Penal Code 1.04(d)


the “Territorial Jurisdiction” of “this state” as follows:

“This state includes the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water, over which this state has power to define offenses.”

Are you beginning to see a trend here?

[Fortyone]

Please refer me to a document that uses the term "XXXX State" instead of "State of XXXX"

[palani]

Your interpretation of the law and political divisions has never been used in the US.

In the 1600s in England for 30-40 years the parliament made the mistake of referring to "the counties" which make up England. They had to back up and re-write a lot of code to read either specific county names (County of Kent, etc) or to refer to them as "the several counties". There is no "the" (singular) "counties" (plural).

The USA is a singular entity. Anywhere the constitution refers to "them" the reference is to the several States.

Singular and plural are quite important unless English comes as a second language.

[I am me, I am free]

Your interpretation of the law and political divisions has never been used in the US.


It's not 'my interpretation', it's how bidness is done.

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?referrer=gwslookup&storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&busName=obama&state=DC&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb*home*gws*lookup#goTop

*note that you're going to need to cut and paste that link

And that's just a little snippet. lol

[palani]

The STATE OF LOUISIANA is a legal fiction and a political subdivision of the federal corporation know as 'UNITED STATES', whereas Louisiana state is not.

In truth there is not a one of them that isn't a legal fiction. But when a constitution spells out the name that an entity can sue or be sued then you had best not modify that name.

[I am me, I am free]

Your interpretation of the law and political divisions has never been used in the US.


And btw, the term is not 'political divisions' it's political subdivisions'.

[dysgenic]

This whole thread is a gigantic waste of time. What difference does it make what the law says, what the statute says, what the code says, what the ordinance says, what the constitution says? Get busted with a concealed, unregistered firearm and then walk into a courtroom and announce with your chest all puffed out "I do not consent to be governed. The Constitution says that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed." See how far that takes you. Don't like constitutional arguments? Fine. Solve things the 'administrative' way and challenge subject matter jurisdiction for lack of standing/corpus dilecti in any gun case, any drug case, any traffic case, or any tax case. Just don't challenge it too many time or you'll end up in jail for the fake crime of 'contempt of court' without a remedy due to the fraudulent notion of judicial immunity.
Or impeach their witnesses as to make their testimony null. Then bombard them with paperwork that they don't respond to. Hold their feet to the fire to answer your questions responsively. Hit them with unrebutted affidavits and win that way. Question them on their oaths. Study the courtroom procedures and nail 'em with the 'judges aren't permitted to act as a prosecuter' rule. Spell your name with all lowercase with a hyphen in the middle. Give them your Christian name and not your corporate name. Object to hearsay testimony. Sign all rights reserved. Or under duress. Refuse to swear an oath to tell the truth. Don't say that you understand. You represent yourself, you are not 'pro se'. I AM A REAL PERSON, NOT AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON! Or beat them on a procedural error when they have you improperly served. Write 'refuse for cause' within 3 days of receiving a summons.

I've been down this road friends.

dys

[I am me, I am free]

This whole thread is a gigantic waste of time. What difference does it make what the law says, what the statute says, what the code says, what the ordinance says, what the constitution says? Get busted with a concealed, unregistered firearm and then walk into a courtroom and announce with your chest all puffed out "I do not consent to be governed. The Constitution says that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed." See how far that takes you. Don't like constitutional arguments? Fine. Solve things the 'administrative' way and challenge subject matter jurisdiction for lack of standing/corpus dilecti in any gun case, any drug case, any traffic case, or any tax case. Just don't challenge it too many time or you'll end up in jail for the fake crime of 'contempt of court' without a remedy due to the fraudulent notion of judicial immunity.
Or impeach their witnesses as to make their testimony null. Then bombard them with paperwork that they don't respond to. Hold their feet to the fire to answer your questions responsively. Hit them with unrebutted affidavits and win that way. Question them on their oaths. Study the courtroom procedures and nail 'em with the 'judges aren't permitted to act as a prosecuter' rule. Spell your name with all lowercase with a hyphen in the middle. Give them your Christian name and not your corporate name. Object to hearsay testimony. Sign all rights reserved. Or under duress. Refuse to swear an oath to tell the truth. Don't say that you understand. You represent yourself, you are not 'pro se'. I AM A REAL PERSON, NOT AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON! Or beat them on a procedural error when they have you improperly served. Write 'refuse for cause' within 3 days of receiving a summons.

I've been down this road friends.

dys



I personally know of someone who was busted for "UCW" - unlawfully carrying a weapon (a handgun). He researched the law, nailed the case (the original intent of the legislation had to do with carrying a STOLEN handgun, and he got the cop to admit on the stand that it was HIS gun), and the judge made sure he was found guilty. But guess what - the judge imposed NO sentence.

Perhaps you weren't using the Howard Freeman approach: "Be ye as wise as serpents, but gentle as doves." Howard ALWAYS prevailed - judges couldn't help but like him.

[Phoenix]

and the judge made sure he was found guilty. But guess what - the judge imposed NO sentence.


Big deal, no sentence. The conviction shows how the "courts" work.

[Skirnir]

Did anyone watch that Irwin Schiff video in its entirety? :oo-->

[palani]

Then bombard them with paperwork that they don't respond to.

When they don't respond they are telling you that they agree with you. Why are you fighting with someone who agrees with you? I believe I would just say "thank you" and move on.

Should you be hauled in again on the public side then you might raise the question of whether the public side recognizes a private side settlement and closure.