PDA

View Full Version : On Birth Certificates...



Carl
5th May 2012, 05:49 PM
Enjoy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk&feature=fvwrel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKu2UNHQpA&feature=fvwrel

iOWNme
6th May 2012, 07:13 AM
Watching now.......5 minutes in and i do like this guy already, but still waiting on his meat and potatoes before i make an assessment.

Thanks for sharing Carl.

BillBoard
6th May 2012, 08:21 AM
Some good stuff. I disagree about his conclusions about money, in certain context and jurisdictions the form of payment is very important as to the validity of rights and contracts. Bank of Canada notes are negotiable instruments and part of the law merchant, so yes, it behooves anyone to know their rights and how to exercise, defend, and enforce them.

iOWNme
8th May 2012, 04:49 PM
Overall i liked this video. He has a little bit of a different take on the whole 'Strawman/Name' theories, which i found interesting.

His take seems to be that everything comes down to the Name/BC. It is a Title that the Government owns and we use it so therefore the jurisdiction to tax is justified. Things like SSN, etc are merely evidence that you are using the name, for you cannot get a SSN without a BC. I liked some of his story's too like the where a Judge told him "We are not here to do God's work we are here to do Caesar's work." To which he replied "I totally agree your Honor. Now we just need to figure out who Caesar is".

I am going to watch more of this guys videos.....Thanks again Carl.

palani
8th May 2012, 05:03 PM
Isn't NAME subject to some degree of interpretation?

For example, Steven Jay Jones might hold the BC up to a mirror and discover that in an adjoining universe his given name would be Yaj Nevets. You might have simply been reading your name wrong all these years.

iOWNme
8th May 2012, 06:08 PM
Isn't NAME subject to some degree of interpretation?

For example, Steven Jay Jones might hold the BC up to a mirror and discover that in an adjoining universe his given name would be Yaj Nevets. You might have simply been reading your name wrong all these years.

Did you watch the video? I would like your take on it.....

Glass
8th May 2012, 06:38 PM
Thanks Carl, interesting first few minutes regarding "Registration". Am keen to see how this pans out.

Have seen his stuff before. Is this guy involved in the Creditors In Commerce people?

I like how he mentions usufruct @ about 17. It is an important concept for people to grasp.

palani
8th May 2012, 07:09 PM
Did you watch the video?
Haven't had a couple hrs to spare yet.

Hatha Sunahara
8th May 2012, 10:16 PM
I just finished watching both videos for the first time. There are cosmetic differences between Canada's courts and those of the USA. Many of these guys who are freemen and give video lectures, like him and Johnny Liberty and Robert Menard learned this stuff through the school of hard knocks. They have spent time in jail, learning about the law.

I like his advice about making your own photo ID. I'm going to start working on mine.

Somewhere, I read that the definition of 'driving' is using a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. And that the motor vehicle statutes do not apply to people who are not 'driving'. So, I presume that to mean that I can travel in my car for non-commercial purposes without a driver's license. I wonder if 'vehicle registration' has a similar definition. If so, then I would be able to show a cop my photo ID that I made myself, and my insurance contract. If registration is only for commercial vehicles, then I presume I wouldn't need license plates either. I do have an inherent right to travel, but I suspect that I would wind up in jail if I didn't exercise my rights. I would probably also need to make up a fee schedule just in case a cop decided he was going to violate my rights against my will. Steve Jobs drove around without a driver's license. He didn't spend any time in jail. I wonder if he was aware of his common law rights.


Hatha

sirgonzo420
8th May 2012, 10:18 PM
I just finished watching both videos for the first time. There are cosmetic differences between Canada's courts and those of the USA. Many of these guys who are freemen and give video lectures, like him and Johnny Liberty and Robert Menard learned this stuff through the school of hard knocks. They have spent time in jail, learning about the law.

I like his advice about making your own photo ID. I'm going to start working on mine.

Somewhere, I read that the definition of 'driving' is using a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. And that the motor vehicle statutes do not apply to people who are not 'driving'. So, I presume that to mean that I can travel in my car for non-commercial purposes without a driver's license. I wonder if 'vehicle registration' has a similar definition. If so, then I would be able to show a cop my photo ID that I made myself, and my insurance contract. If registration is only for commercial vehicles, then I presume I wouldn't need license plates either. I do have an inherent right to travel, but I suspect that I would wind up in jail if I didn't exercise my rights. I would probably also need to make up a fee schedule just in case a cop decided he was going to violate my rights against my will. Steve Jobs drove around without a driver's license. He didn't spend any time in jail. I wonder if he was aware of his common law rights.


Hatha


Steve Jobs didn't have plates on his car either.


http://autos.aol.com/article/loophole-let-steve-jobs-drive-without-a-license-plate/

So it turns out, if you are incredibly wealthy, live in California, and are somewhat paranoid, you can find a way to drive around town without those pesky license plates cluttering up your car.

At least, that's what Steve Jobs did. Thanks to a seemingly endless supply of money, IT Wire reports (http://www.itwire.com/it-people-news/enterprise/50649-the-truth-about-steve-jobs-number-plate) he found a way around having a license plate: By treating his Mercedes SL55 AMG cars as if they were disposable.

Turns out, in California, you can drive a brand-new car for six months without getting a license plate. So that's what Jobs would do. He'd lease a silver SL55 (starting price: $103,000) for almost six months, then turn it in and get an identical one when it was time to get a new one.

The New York Times has identified the statute as California Vehicle Code No. 4456, which says that a new vehicle can be driven for up to six months without license plates. (Although the newspaper goes on to explain that the law is changing to shorten that period to three months in July 2012.)

So Jobs' grand act of defiance was made possible by simply leasing a new car every six months.

But before we close the books on the license plate issue, we'd like to perhaps see some more evidence. If Jobs indeed acquired a new car every six months, we'd have to assume that sometime in 2009 he started driving something other than an SL55 AMG. It went out of production in 2008, and was replaced by the 2009 Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/16/in-the-autoblog-garage-2008-mercedes-sl63-amg-and-sl600/). Yet we've seen photos of what is said to be Jobs' 2007 SL55, reportedly with over 21,000 miles on the odo (http://gizmodo.com/5611196/the-mystery-of-steve-jobs-plateless-benz) in summer 2010.

Perhaps this is just another case of Steve's "reality distortion field," persisting even after his death.

iOWNme
9th May 2012, 05:37 AM
I just finished watching both videos for the first time. There are cosmetic differences between Canada's courts and those of the USA. Many of these guys who are freemen and give video lectures, like him and Johnny Liberty and Robert Menard learned this stuff through the school of hard knocks. They have spent time in jail, learning about the law.

I like his advice about making your own photo ID. I'm going to start working on mine.

Somewhere, I read that the definition of 'driving' is using a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. And that the motor vehicle statutes do not apply to people who are not 'driving'. So, I presume that to mean that I can travel in my car for non-commercial purposes without a driver's license. I wonder if 'vehicle registration' has a similar definition. If so, then I would be able to show a cop my photo ID that I made myself, and my insurance contract. If registration is only for commercial vehicles, then I presume I wouldn't need license plates either. I do have an inherent right to travel, but I suspect that I would wind up in jail if I didn't exercise my rights. I would probably also need to make up a fee schedule just in case a cop decided he was going to violate my rights against my will. Steve Jobs drove around without a driver's license. He didn't spend any time in jail. I wonder if he was aware of his common law rights.


Hatha


Deans method seems to be that it is you who decides which capacity you are acting in. Just because you have a DL, does not mean you are 'driving' or 'engaged in commerce'. It is up to the court to prove what capacity you were acting in. Just because you have a license to do something, doesnt mean you were doing it when they attempt to 'tax' you on the usage of that license.

Hatha Sunahara
9th May 2012, 09:14 AM
I have been thinking of not renewing my driver's license when it expires. I have to make an estimate of how much time I would be spending in court defending myself before I make any such decision. Presenting a drivers license to a cop is granting jurisdiction to statutory law by assuming responsibility for the legal fiction of the straw man they have created for me. I have an inherent right to travel. My straw man needs a license. I don't.

Hatha

BillBoard
9th May 2012, 09:28 AM
I have been thinking of not renewing my driver's license when it expires. I have to make an estimate of how much time I would be spending in court defending myself before I make any such decision. Presenting a drivers license to a cop is granting jurisdiction to statutory law by assuming responsibility for the legal fiction of the straw man they have created for me. I have an inherent right to travel. My straw man needs a license. I don't.

Hatha

How about the car? Will it be registered? Do you have enough funds to meet your state's min financial responsibility liability law?

Do you really want to be sitting in jail every time they feel like detaining you?

iOWNme
9th May 2012, 09:43 AM
I have been thinking of not renewing my driver's license when it expires. I have to make an estimate of how much time I would be spending in court defending myself before I make any such decision. Presenting a drivers license to a cop is granting jurisdiction to statutory law by assuming responsibility for the legal fiction of the straw man they have created for me. I have an inherent right to travel. My straw man needs a license. I don't.

Hatha

Can you statutorily prove this?

Maybe you got the license for transporting people for a profit, but when you got pulled over, you were merely going to your mothers house. The Government cannot dictate to you what you are doing, regardless of if you have a license or not.

In this line of thinking, then you have granted ALL Jurisdiction to the State via the BC, wouldnt you agree?

Kinda like Menard when he says "An apple is a round red fruit. But that does not mean all round red fruit are apples. There are cherries, palmagranites, etc".

Hatha Sunahara
9th May 2012, 06:20 PM
I can't statutorily prove anything. I never use my car for commerce. Nobody pays me to drive around. I am not driving. I am traveling, as it is my inherent right to do. The state has to prove I was driving. They cannot. So, why do I need a 'Driver's License'?

Is that faulty logic? Or is it 'counter-legalese'? What am I missing here?


Hatha

palani
9th May 2012, 06:22 PM
What am I missing here?


Hatha

Necessity. Martial law. Unresolved civil war.

Glass
9th May 2012, 09:02 PM
There is a 3rd segment to the Dean Clifford videos. This one is 2 hours of Q & A.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2GaxlGTyAE&feature=channel&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2GaxlGTyAE&feature=channel&list=UL

I can understand Deans position on all of the information and processes and interpretations people are putting on this stuff. KISS principles are ideal. Lets find the keystone to all of this, the thing that works and then who cares what the other side does.

My belief is a complete disconnect is the only true way, otherwise you are going to be forced into interactions, even if it's just you are in proximity to on of their actors.... like policemen.

So now standing back in the real world at times you are going to face these guys down. You are going to need leverage. So he says he doesn't care about all that UCC stuff. But we get to the point where he's talking about using it himself to lien up officials.

As well as leverage you are going to have to protect yourself. That means your assets and you. This takes planning and you may need to give other people power of attorney for specific events or circumstances.

Registration is a key part of it. I still contend if gives them equitable claim or at least the ability to lien something for equitable claim. So while people like Dean contend it is good to register, and it might be in some circumstances, in most cases the Govt will use that registration against you.

I have a statement from my local Police service. I am trying to locate it. It states that the Police have NO power to impound or otherwise confiscate a vehicle if it is NOT registered. They do not explain why, but we know why don't we? Registration makes something public. Something not registered is private.

I gotta find that statement.

Uncle Salty
9th May 2012, 10:42 PM
I can't statutorily prove anything. I never use my car for commerce. Nobody pays me to drive around. I am not driving. I am traveling, as it is my inherent right to do. The state has to prove I was driving. They cannot. So, why do I need a 'Driver's License'?

Is that faulty logic? Or is it 'counter-legalese'? What am I missing here?


Hatha

First off, he is talking Canadian law. Now I don't how well what he is talking about relates to US law.

That being said, I think you are correct. If you never intend to drive commercially as an agent of the government, you don't need one. But, even if you have one, he is saying that is it incumbent upon the government to prove you were acting as agent of the state in order to make you liable for breaking a statute.

Uncle Salty
9th May 2012, 10:51 PM
Bottom line: They get us to act through a title that they regulate that is statutorily bound that they can tax. We agree to act under that title and therefore bound ourselves to their statutes.

So, remedy is to not act under their regulatory title and instead act under our own title.

Glass
9th May 2012, 11:58 PM
Ok so here is the Police statement I was talking about.



From yesterday (1 July 2009) amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1974 will enable police to impound a vehicle for 28 days for certain driver’s licence offences.
Police cannot/will not seize a vehicle for an unauthorised driving offence associated with:
• Expired Licence (not renewed, forgot etc)
• Never held
• Driving out of class
• Driving contrary to driver’s licence conditions
• Fine suspension (licence lost for unpaid fines)
• Learner driver without instructor
• Novice driver breaching curfew


Link to PDF of statement: Western Australia Police (http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Portals/11/PDFs/Media%20Release/2009/090702%20Clarification%20on%20Confiscated%20Vehicl es.pdf)

Son-of-Liberty
11th May 2012, 10:45 AM
I have only watched the first video so far but it makes more sense to me then probably any other material I have dug into. Definitely looking forward to going threw his other material. It actually makes sense and is easy to wrap your head around.

Most people make the wrong argument and don't properly challenge the governments presumptions because they don't know which presumptions are getting them in trouble. The prosecution and judge aren't going to let you know either.

I actually have some stuff that would be somewhat supportive of his work I need to scan it or maybe a photo might work. I think you guys would be pretty interested.


Ok so here is the Police statement I was talking about.



Link to PDF of statement: Western Australia Police (http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Portals/11/PDFs/Media%20Release/2009/090702%20Clarification%20on%20Confiscated%20Vehicl es.pdf)

According to this they are basically telling you they have no way to enforce any of the driving laws unless you are acting as a government agent at the time. If they can't steal your property for expired license or registration or unpaid fines then how the hell would they enforce payment of tickets.