License plate scanners collecting data on millions

[Sidney]

They have covered all the bases now haven't they. I know this is old news, as i remember hearing something about the scanners a year or so ago, but add it to all the other surveillance,,,, cameras, satellites,drones email/phone evesdropping,etc.etc. and you see, there is absolutely no escaping the police state that is on us at this very moment.

http://news.yahoo.com/license-plate-scanners-collecting-data-millions-u-drivers-202859043.html


License plate scanners collecting data on millions of U.S. drivers: ACLU report
LikeDislike
Reuters 1 hour ago
Society

(Reuters) - U.S. law enforcement agencies are using license plate scanners designed to track down criminals to build databases detailing the whereabouts of millions of U.S. drivers, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a report released on Wednesday.

The ACLU's new report summarized the advocacy group's 2012 investigation into the way law enforcement agencies collect and store data from license plate readers, which are typically installed alongside roads or on police cars.

The license plate scanner systems quickly photograph passing cars and analyze their license numbers to check against lists of cars sought by law enforcement in ongoing investigations.

ACLU's review of documents from 38 states and Washington, D.C. found that the systems are also often used to log databases of information - photographs, plate numbers, time and location - gathered by the cameras over months or even years from all the passing cars, not just select ones.

"I think (people) fail to appreciate the tremendous scope of tracking, which can occur using license-plate readers," said Catherine Crump, the main author of the report.

"We've never before lived in a society where you couldn't go out the door without the government knowing where you went."

The report, based on documents ACLU affiliates received from local police departments through 587 freedom of information requests, gives new fodder to the growing debate over the scope of the U.S. government's surveillance.

Law enforcement authorities say gathering data on the comings and goings of U.S. drivers is a valuable resource for speedier investigations, including future ones.

The ACLU said it does not oppose the use of license plate readers in fighting crime, but worries about the massive systems of location tracking being too broad and ripe for abuse, be it personal by individual officers, or political, by institutions.

"While it is legitimate to use license plate readers to identify those who are alleged to have committed crimes, the overwhelming majority of people whose movements are monitored and recorded by these machines are innocent, and there is no reason for the police to be keeping records on their movements," the group said in its report.

According to the report, "only a fraction of 1 percent" of license plate scans done by the readers are hits for cars of interest to law enforcement, and fewer lead to an arrest.

How long law enforcement authorities keep the records from license plate scanners varies. Some agencies, such as the Ohio State Highway Patrol or the Minnesota State Patrol, quickly delete data on regular passersby, the report said.

In other jurisdictions, such as Tiburon, California or Burbank, Illinois, the data is kept for less than a month. In New Jersey, law requires storage for five years. In some jurisdictions, such as Yonkers in New York and Mesquite in Texas, the retention is indefinite, according to the report.

To read the report, see http://r.reuters.com/hyz69t.

(Reporting by Alina Selyukh; Editing by Chris Reese)

[gripreaper]

This is anecdotal, but relevant.

I let the registration tabs on my auto expire, as I understood that registering one's private automobile to the state, and getting tabs gives them jurisdiction over the driver, as the auto is then classified as a "motor vehicle" which makes it commercial. That is how they get you by getting you to voluntarily register your private conveyance and declare the use class "commercial"

We also do that when we apply for a "certificate of title" to the private conveyance, as this pledges the automobile to the state, which holds the primary title MCO (manuf. cert of origin). This makes the state the primary title holder. The certificate of title they give you just gives you secondary use title, the "possessionary rights" of use, provided you follow all the statutory rules imposed by the state agencies, such as "forced placed insurance".

So, we voluntarily pledge ourselves and our private auto's to the state, giving them full jurisdiction to treat us like terrorists on the highways. When a cop stops you, he knows you are his and he can do whatever he wants. If you resist his questions or his inquiry, they can and often times do threaten to pull you out of the car, handcuff you, impound your auto, etc. Because they can.

So, in preparation for the trial on the citation of driving with expired tabs, I have done a notarized Declaration, recorded it in the public records, and submitted it to the Municipal Court which:

1 Redacts all my signatures on all registrations, certificates, and pledges to the state.

2. Certifies and declares that I am not using the highways for commercial use, but the use classification is "private/consumer goods. I also reaffirm, that I have no intention, now or in the future, to use my private conveyance for commercial purposes. I site 18 USC 31(6) as the basis for it.

I then send original notarized public recorded copies via "Notary Presentment" to the Secretary of State, as well as the Dept. of Motor Vehicles requesting the MCO and a use reclassification, which I will carry with me in my private automobile at all times.

This Notarized document recorded in the public, presented to the State via Notary presentment, gives the document unequivocal validity as a judicial document, and must not be ignored. If it is ignored, I have a case for reprisal and a lawsuit against the state.

If I get stopped by a cop, I present him with this document, and encourage him not to ignore it, explaining the validity of a judicial document by a notary recorded in the public.

Then, once the State has had adequate time to respond, if they respond with certified copies of the MCO and change the use classification on my private auto, and place the change into the CLEMIS and NCIC databases which all cops use, were good.

If the state does not respond, I "Notice" them of Default and give them the opportunity to cure. If they do not cure, then I have the basis for a tort claim should any state agency or municipality mess with me.

Not saying it will work or make my life easier. I'm just sick and tired of being owned by the state, my property which I work hard for and pay for, pledged to them so they can screw with me, and leave the door open for them to track me and scan me on the highways. One day there will be checkpoints and I want to be outside their jurisdiction.

I will take my plates off and travel in my private/consumer goods private conveyance and take what comes my way.

[Sidney]

WOW Grip, I had no idea. How did you know to do that? And how long have you been able to get away with this? Very clever, if it is indeed legal.

[ThePythonicCow]

WOW Grip, I had no idea. How did you know to do that? And how long have you been able to get away with this? Very clever, if it is indeed legal.

I'd be careful, Sidney. Gripreaper has the legal savvy and gumption to navigate legal mazes that many of us would get lost in.

I'm sure not doing it :).

[shadowstalker]

I think I am going to call the NSA HOARDERS, you know like the show, what a mess they are collecting. and I dont care what folks say It's going to take decades for them to sort out what they have

[Sidney]

WOW Grip, I had no idea. How did you know to do that? And how long have you been able to get away with this? Very clever,IF it is indeed legal.

I'd be careful, Sidney. Gripreaper has the legal savvy and gumption to navigate legal mazes that many of us would get lost in.

I'm sure not doing it :).

I'm not either, i sure don't need any tickets. In my neck of the woods, you would never get away with it, regardless of whether its legal or not. But sometimes there are ways around the system, if you have the map. I personally, am not one to go challenging the police (nor would I recommend anyone else do it).

[Sidney]

WOW Grip, I had no idea. How did you know to do that? And how long have you been able to get away with this? Very clever, if it is indeed legal.

In all seriousness though, don't you think really this licence plate scanning, is to rake in more money. I mean, just like the cameras at stop lights, and people receiving a ticket in the mail, because the camera caught the car running the light.
So the scanner picks up ( and documents) a car that goes by with an expired tag. Or no tag. Or someone that owes thousands in parking tickets. etc. can you imagine the money that is to ge generated?

[sigma6]

Good work Grip, That is taking a risk, but I admire your willingness to dive in there... hahaha Not sure whether that covers all the basis, but as you know there is only one way to learn... this is a tricky area, because you are dealing with the cops and the courts, I remember when I had "all rights reserved" on the signature of the drivers license. They used to pull up read the plates and then drive away. (very cool) That eventually fell apart when they had me on "criminal" charges (statutory) and tried to tear me apart (they don't like us very much...) It took over a year and half but I beat all their charges with the help of a lawyer, as there was no way I could do it myself in their empty backroom courts with a dozen of their employees and no public observers...

I think you have to look at EVERYTHING in terms of the NAME. Everything revolves around this. And then you can use the same logic, but at just a different level, since it will all subsume under the Title/Account that is the NAME. For this context, think of the NAME like a variable in computer programming. It can be assigned a 'label' which is the NAME. And it can hold all kinds of different attributes such as property, accounts or anything else that can be construed to have the attribute of title. So it is essentially a container, an account itself. The Master Account.

That is why understanding the relationship of the NAME is so important, because it is the legal key to everything else in your life. The cornerstone.
You were issued a certificate:
A ticket:
A warrant:
A written assurance: of official representation that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with
A written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge or officer.
A statement of some fact in writing signed by the party certifying.

Of course the event is the recording of a birth. Which is transformed into the record of a berth. The REGISTRAR GENERAL does not register people, but events. In the letter we got they were careful NOT to they don't register persons, because they do, But they don't register people... Persons are corporate entities. That is your berth into the commercial world. The record is the CoLB/SoLB Certificate of Live Birth, Statement of Live Birth. The original ink signature document. Since this starts out as a conceptual idea (i.e. registration of a NAME) The only evidence of this Title is the original ink signature document. That is the Legal Title. They hold the Legal Title. You are then issued a certificate. Also called a valuable "token". In and of itself it has no value, but like a ticket or warrant, it does provide evidence of the event of the recording of the event which created the record and Title.

Title:
"Title refers to the legal ownership of a property interest so that one having title to a property interest can withstand the assertion of others claiming a right to that ownership.

Evidence of Title:
A document proving "ownership" ( I put this in quotes, because I am not even going to attempt to define this as it would literally be beyond the scope of this post, just understand this word should NEVER be used or your done.... The only exception is claiming the State is the the LEGAL OWNER of the NAME... this is the monkey wrench I have yet to get a handle on...)


Let's add some more definitions:
“property” includes Criminal Code of Canada, 1985, c. C-46
(a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property


“security” includes,
(a) any document, instrument or writing commonly known as a security,
(b) any document constituting evidence of title to or interest in the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of any person or company,
(c) any document constituting evidence of an interest in an association of legatees or heirs,
(d) any document constituting evidence of an option, subscription or other interest in or to a security,


So what I am suggesting is... that your certificate is evidence of the existence of a Title, which was recorded, registered and is held by the State, which in turn is evidence of a security. This isn't as far a stretch because there is plenty of evidence that others have done that points out they are creating bonds against this title through some kind of securitization. The courts are banks, and according to Winston Shrout all the courts in the US have Treasury Account access.

So where does that leave us?... Who are we?... My thing has always been understanding what is our RELATIONSHIP to all this...

Now the big issue that people get hung up on, at this stage. Is if they have the Legal Title, where does that leave us... Well from the definition of Settlor
we get that we are the ones that have provided consideration.



But before we get to that, we have to add a few more definitions for context:


BLACK’s LAW 4th Ed:
(basically the Settlor is Grantor is Donor is Trustor!)
Settlor:
The grantor or donor in a deed of settlement.
Also, one who creates trust.
One who furnishes the consideration for the creation
of a trust, though in form the trust is created by another.
Grantor:
The person by whom a grant is made.
Donor:
The party conferring a power. .
One who makes a gift. One who creates a trust.
He who gives lands or tenements to another in tail.
In Old English law. He by whom lands were given to
another; the party making a donatio.
Trustor:
One who creates a trust. Also called a settlor.



DEFINITION OF FUNDAMENTAL TERMS:
1. Trust:
A trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to specific property, to which the trustee holds legal title for the beneficiaries, who hold equitable title.

2. Settlor:
A settlor is the person who creates the trust by will or inter vivos transfer. (The settlor may also be called the “trustor”, “donor”, “transferor”, “grantor” or “testator”
3. Trustee:
The trustee is the individual or entity that holds legal title to the trust property.
4. Trust Property:
The trust property (or res) is the interest the trustee holds for the beneficiaries.
5. Beneficiary
A beneficiaries (“cestui que trust”) is a person for whose benefit the trust property is held by the trustee.



CLASSIFICATIONS OF TRUSTS:

1. Methods of Classifying
Trusts may be classified according to the (i) duties imposed on the trustee (i.e, active vs passive); (ii) purposes of the trust (i.e., private vs. charitable); (iii) purposes of the trust (i.e., private vs. charitable); (iiii) manner of creation (e.g., express, resulting, constructive); and (iv) time of creation (i.e., inter vivos or testamentary).

2. Active vs. Passive Trusts
In an active trust, the trustee has some affirmative management duties. In a passive trust, the trustee has no real duties but is a mere holder of the legal title.

a. Statute of Uses
Uses were historical predecessors of trust and were usually passive. The Statute of Uses was enacted in 1536 to eliminate this method of holding or passing title to land. The Statute transformed an equitable interest into legal interest. The Statute as construed was held inapplicable to some uses (e.g. personal property and most active uses were not covered). The Statute of Uses concept is still recognized in most American jurisdictions.

3. Private vs. Charitable Trusts
A charitable trust bestows a benefit upon the public at large or upon a broad segment of the public. Other trusts are private and are subject to more restrictive rules.

4. Express Trusts vs. Those Created by Operation of Law

a. Express trusts
An express trust is created as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship that the law recognizes as a trust.

b. Resulting trusts
A resulting trust is an [I]equitable reversionary interest based on legally presumed intention of a property owner. It arises by operation of law where an express trust fails in whole or in part or where its beneficial provisions are incomplete.

c. Constructive trusts
A constructive trust is a remedial device [fiction] imposed by a court of equity to prevent a person who has obtained property by wrongful conduct [de sont tort trustee?] or unjust enrichment from deriving the benefits thereof.
_______________________________________


de son tort trustee:
Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee. Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a constructive trustee and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts. 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/de-son-tort-trustee.html


Ok, now within this context my understanding is the "property owner" in the resulting trust above is the State! Look at how flimsy that definition is. But we haven't expressed a trust have we? So my focus is on how to express this trust.



this post is still in progress... (needs more research, definitions)

[gripreaper]

So, when the judge calls my name, I walk up to the bar without crossing it and say: I'm here as the representative judge, but you're in luck, he's here in the courtroom today, cause I drug his dead ass in here even though he can't talk. (hold up the birth certificate) :)

So, either you can probate the estate of the deceased, or I appoint you as trustee, under the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES, and demand you discharge and close this matter, since I am the beneficiary of the organic Cesti Que trust.

Either way, there is no controversy. Then, put the birth certificate on the table and walk out. :llama:

[sigma6]

No I don't think so, if you are making reference to the Bill Foust video which I think is a classic example, don't forget we don't know what paperwork he may have done to establish himself, I think he may have set himself up as a secured party creditor... Also when the judge tried to issue a warrant for his failure to appear because he was stating (I forget how he appeared) he offered to "deliver the defendant" to the Judge. Now my interpretation is that the Judge was put on the spot... Because he was the one that allowed Bill to present it in response... And when the Judge asked the Bailiff if it was the BC he was 'presenting' He told him to put it back in his pocket essentially. The reason being because that whole issue was moving toward the private "trade secrets" that CW makes reference to... and his acceptance of it would be game over... he would only be able to dismiss or settle. As he would have had the indisputable evidence in his hand that Bill has the superior interest in the NAME they are trying to charge. With it in his hand as proof of that, he could potentially be forced into his role as the trustee as representative of the State which is holding the legal title. Therefore if Bill is the principal and source and has the superior title and the Judge knows the State which he represent is holding that Title he would be the trustee by definition.

This is what they are AFRAID of

[gripreaper]

I don't think we want to set ourselves up as the secured party creditor, and lay claim to the corporate fiction which we do not hold title to. I'm saying, the judge can have the fiction and probate it if he wants, I don't care cause I don't own it, and am willing to surrender any reversionary interest in the NAME to the judge (bank). On the other hand, if he tries to adhere me to the fiction and force jurisdiction on me, then I invoke my real man status as beneficiary of the Constitutive trust created by the bankruptcy of 1933, of which I am the grantor, settler, executor, beneficiary. I then appoint the judge as trustee, which they do not want to do, like you have said, and force his hand.

He can have it either way, I don't care. Those who did the UCC1 and claimed control of the fiction and claimed secured party creditor status, I think got it wrong.

[edit] Bill Faust was a brilliant man, and I think he had a cop in Page who he had pissed off and was holding a grudge, and took the opportunity to take out his grudge on Billy from the domestic dispute he was called on the night Billy was killed. I know people in Arizona close to the case who have said as much, and his wife feels terrible remorse for calling in the cops and Billy losing his life. It's a tough go for sure. Page is a small town and Billy was fully exposed and he would not take any crap from them.

But he knew his stuff. He knew how not to get adhered to the fiction and how to stand in his power.

[sigma6]

No and I am not suggesting that nor do I want to go that route... I am looking at the trust interpretation where I establish that I am not claiming ownership to the name since I don't have any evidence to show that I have the legal title and I don't think any evidence exists. But instead I have been authorized and bonded by Her Majesty (in my case) to use the NAME for her Majesty in RIGHT of Canada, (and to reiterate) for the benefit of the Province. And I am thinking (in this hypothetical court conversation) that will create the opening to PRESENT the evidence of my interest in the NAME for the settlement of whatever they are looking to charge. No controversy, instead offering to settle, what could freak them out more... It's not even you offering to settle in a trust the trustee holding the legal title for the principal is the obligated party with liability. They catch us when we say we are the owner. (only beneficial owner... forget that...) Just use it for the benefit of the public

Criminal breach of trust

336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

This shows that trustees can hold things for principals in two ways. They are holding something the principal is using for their own benefit (means they have identified themselves as beneficial owner, claiming ownership, even though they couldn't prove they have legal title if they wanted to... or they could be holding it for someone using it for a public purpose...


CC definition of "any one" "person" or "owner", or similar expressions; include her Majesty and an organization

The PERSON is a sole corporation and includes her Majesty and the Crown? We need to define out use as being not based on ownership but for public benefit when that happens then the public is the beneficiary status falls back to them, and they have to push it on to the public ....

or put another way it rebutts the presumption of the constructive trust. What is missing right now is the proper way of expressing the trust... But I think it can be as simple as stating "I don't claim ownership tot he the NAME JOHN DOE Estate" but present the OWNER for settlement (not payment) of any debts in the public. Still haven't specifically defined who I AM... And of course they will be jumping down your throat demanding that you identify yourself...

I know this is the principle, I don't know the rules of civil procedure enough to know the proper process...

[gripreaper]

Yes, the very subtle use of words is very important, although I think you and I are basically saying the same thing, warning each other not to get caught in their trap.


"I don't claim ownership to the NAME JOHN DOE Estate" but present the OWNER for settlement (not payment) of any debts in the public.

This does appear to be a very clean and concise way of presenting the trust. I keep in mind that there is the public statutory fictional legal side of the NAME, and the private real lawful side of me standing there breathing taking crap from these guys.

I want to be able to present a remedy on both sides, no matter which way the proceedings go.

[edit] I really do appreciate you sharing this dialogue with me sigma.

[sigma6]

I know signing documents "for: signature" means not taking liability
so I would sign any documents as
"without prejudice
for: signature"

and if you have the understanding, for them to go against it, would be a breach of trust, if you succumb to their pressure supposing they did, then it's not a breach because you willingly went along with it... that is the game they play...

but if I had to sign a court appearance for example it would be "alleged defendant under duress" and that addresses any "requirement" to "sign in" because I shouldn't be there in the first place, so it would be only by special appearance or under duress, both if i can make them work together....(not sure) will have to finish the rest above later... sleep...

[sigma6]

a rehash of above post, it's amazing how the whole thing is tied up in all these definitions... So I just see which definitions I can pull into focus on any given day. But this was sent out in an email and may have a little better flow. It starts with equity as superior or transcendent form of law, and tries to focus on the BC and how it can be used in court...

I think the key is to present the BC and tell them to they have use of it to settle the matter by end of day. PERIOD.



Equity Main article: Equity (law)
Equity is a concept of rights distinct from legal rights, i.e., "the body of principles constituting what is fair and right (natural law)."[2] It was "the system of law or body of principles originating in the English Court of Chancery and superseding the common and statute law (together called 'law' in the narrower sense) when the two conflict."[2] In equity, a judge determines what is fair and just and makes a decision as opposed to deciding what is legal.



Common Law and Equity (Courts of Justice Act - R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.43)
Rules of law and equity
Courts shall administer concurrently all rules (1) 96. of equity and the common law. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (1); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

Rules of equity to prevail
Where a rule of equity (2) conflicts with a rule of the common law, the rule of equity prevails. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (2); 1993, c. 27, Sched.



Certificate: (Black’s Law 4th Edition)
A ticket: A warrant:
A written assurance of official representation that some act has or has not been done , or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with
A written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge or officer.
A statement of some fact in writing signed by the party certifying.

[evidence of “the facts so certified” as per the Vital Statistics Act?]


Notice written on BC's in England:
This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person presenting it.



“security” includes, (Securities Exchange Act)
(a) any document, instrument or writing commonly known as a security,

(b) any document constituting evidence of title to or interest in the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of any person or company,

(c) any document constituting evidence of an interest in an association of legatees or heirs,

(d) any document constituting evidence of an option, subscription or other interest in or to a security,



Expressed Trusts vs. Those Created By Operation of Law:
- Gilbert’s Law Summaries: Trusts - Edward C. Halbach Jr (2008)

a. Express trusts
An express trust is created as a result of a manifestation of intention to create the relationship that the law recognizes as a trust.

[think “last will and testament” ...while we still live]

b. Resulting trusts
A resulting trust is an equitable reversionary interest based on the legally presumed intention of a property owner. It arises by operation of law where an express trust fails in whole or in part or where its beneficial provisions are incomplete.

c. Constructive trusts
A constructive trust is a remdial device imposed by a court of equity to prevent a person who has obtained property by wrongful conduct or unjust enrichment from deriving the benefits thereof. [a de sont tort trustee?]



De sont tort trustee: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/de-son-tort-trustee.html

Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee. Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a constructive trustee and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts.
- 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.

[although I still think there is a proper way to become the occupant of the office of the Executor of the Estate]



Settlor: (Black’s Law 4th Edition)
The grantor or donor in a deed of settlement.
Also, one who creates trust.

One who furnishes the consideration for the creation of a trust, though in form the trust is created by another



In principle, I believe the “property owner” in the above definition is the Province/State. They hold the legal title, therefore by definition, THEY are the legal “owner”. However they did not give any consideration for it but only created the documentation. Therefore they are only HOLDING it until someone comes forth and expresses the trust. Only one party can do that, and that would be the recipient of the certificate of the evidence of the facts so certified (ie. that they registered and are holding the Title to the NAME. Thus our answer lies an “Equity in Trust interpretation. For it is only in equity that we hold interest in the title (equitable title)

Pocket Criminal Code (2009) - pg 6
"every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;


Full circle, so it looks like they are dragging you into court to try and see if they can get away with sticking you with what should rightfully be their liability!

I have left out the word ownership, or not much more on it, again because I don’t understand it’s full meaning yet, it is a dangerous word, it has as many as a dozen different definitions! And without this context, how can we possibly even use this word when communicating? especially in a legal context??!!! Therefore I would only use it in the following context for example...

“I do NOT claim ownership of the DOE, JOHN Estate”... ( because that’s not my relationship to it! )

[sigma6]

I don't think we want to set ourselves up as the secured party creditor, and lay claim to the corporate fiction which we do not hold title to. I'm saying, the judge can have the fiction and probate it if he wants, I don't care cause I don't own it, and am willing to surrender any reversionary interest in the NAME to the judge (bank). On the other hand, if he tries to adhere me to the fiction and force jurisdiction on me, then I invoke my real man status as beneficiary of the Constitutive trust created by the bankruptcy of 1933, of which I am the grantor, settler, executor, beneficiary. I then appoint the judge as trustee, which they do not want to do, like you have said, and force his hand.

He can have it either way, I don't care. Those who did the UCC1 and claimed control of the fiction and claimed secured party creditor status, I think got it wrong.

[edit] Bill Faust was a brilliant man, and I think he had a cop in Page who he had pissed off and was holding a grudge, and took the opportunity to take out his grudge on Billy from the domestic dispute he was called on the night Billy was killed. I know people in Arizona close to the case who have said as much, and his wife feels terrible remorse for calling in the cops and Billy losing his life. It's a tough go for sure. Page is a small town and Billy was fully exposed and he would not take any crap from them.

But he knew his stuff. He knew how not to get adhered to the fiction and how to stand in his power.

Thanks for that update, I'd say that is a pretty fair assessment... it's good you caught and understand the reversionary interest concept in the NAME, my understanding that is how the government gets back all property when there is no will, is its whole purpose. I do believe you can walk in with birth certificate, properly present it to whomever is the representative for the State (legal owner of the NAME) and instruct them (offer) they have use of it for today to settle any liabilities in the public. And if they question anything. MY QUESTION is "what do you think you are doing with MY NAME?" (Your NOT the "owner", but it WAS INTENDED to be GIVEN to YOU") "Are you denying or obstructing my efforts to settle this matter?" "Are you refusing my offer of settlement?" etc...

Again, the only left out here is HOW you are using it, I really think there is something to that as according the CC section 336:

Criminal breach of trust (Pocket Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 296.

ie. in order to receive the "indemnification" it provides you have to use it according to the requirement of the "subscriber" (the issuer, oddly in this example). Which means if you want to be "vested" with the authority it is entitling you (as per the Vital Statistics Act) then the "Subscription" requires you use it for the benefit of the issuer. Thus the authority of the issuer is imbued in you and you are indemnified. (check out definition of "subscription" Mind you that might not come up, if you just go straight to settlement, as that would be implied by your actions to begin with...

So you are entitled to use the Name for your benefit and use or for charitable or public purpose. This has never been properly worked out clearly in my mind, but it is clear that those two

They only 'adhere' you to the fiction based on what YOU do and say...

I agree with you about the secured party creditor, if only I never feel like I properly understand it in terms of mechanism, and neither do others, it seems more like an ego thing, and if you don't understand it, how are you going to make it work?... the biggest thing they are missing in all their paperwork btw is a notice of claim, and I don't think you can "claim" what you don't have legal title to. which gets back to CW's Notice of Interest! (lightbulb) That's it...

It's like the difference between "refusing" and "not consenting" puts you in different jurisdictions! My route is to stay out of the statutory by operating according to equity, if you got that square you can't go wrong, you will lose in statutory, unless you are lawyer.

I'm going straight to LEGAL OWNER and (come to think of it) Statement of Interest and Notice of Interest (SOI, NOI) Actually as I write this, that is making a lot more sense (ha!) That might be all that is necessary to establish the expressed trust! (I can't keep up with CW's group, it's like debating the # of angels dancing on needle type stuff these days, no one talks about the basics anymore... too passe ;( )

"Notice of Claim" may have connotations that don't apply to the BC, a property, the TITLE which is held by the State, but what happens when you change that to "Notice of Interest" ? whooaaaaa!!!! I believe that is a huge step toward "expressing the trust" will have to do some verification, but I think a piece just fell into place...