What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License [Archive]

View Full Version : What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

sigma6

21st April 2014, 23:35

Wanna another good "CONSPIRACY"?

What The Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License
V9kVCQ0y5Ec

You could watch this video 10, 20 times, and learn everything in this video and you'd never be a target for the police again... never saw anything as comprehensive as this... Totally confirms the commercial nature of Police State. It's just corporations harassing the people who chose to "sign on as CITIZENS" (read corporate employees) and being slowly lead away from their understanding of fundamental rights.

If you want rights, you have to WORK for them, you must study, YOU are responsible for your own education, don't look to the government, public school system, and for God's sake stop watching ALL COP and Lawyer TV drama putrid horse manure propaganda shows designed to program you, and make you even more susceptible to the FRAUD that is going on...

If you want to get an education research Google for gems like these...

genevieve

22nd April 2014, 15:13

Thanks sigma6. EXCELLENT and INFORMATIVE.

Wellllll worth the time spent watching it.

Big BUMP.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

sigma6

25th April 2014, 06:47

And he has a site, I haven't checked it out yet (...on the list somewhere...) this guy is loaded with info on this topic, thanks for all your thanks, glad to see this struck a cord... (as I ride off into the sunset of the internet on another adventure... haha!... am I allowed to bump my own thread? ':o

Dawn

25th April 2014, 07:54

I don't know if my post here will be welcome or not... but I still wanted to put it here. I think it is very important for EVERYONE to see and KNOW how extremely aggressive, evil, lying and generally predatory our government and TPTB are. But, interestingly, fighting them simply adds energy to the fight.

About 5 years ago I made the effort to become very educated, and to go through the process to obtain sovereignty. What happened immediately is that I was audited by the IRS for 3 years of taxes. Since I owned my own business this meant hundreds of hours of preparation for the audits... and they happened during my divorce which necessitated hiring a tax attorney and going through an appeals process. Meanwhile, a couple of people I got to know when I was taking classes and going through the application and legal process to become legally sovereign came under attack by the IRS and some other agencies.

I am a friend of a wonderful man who has spent a lifetime fighting for himself in order to defend his rights as a free and sovereign person. I have to say that this has eaten his life. While he has won many battles, he is bitter, angry at TPTB and also... he is penniless.

My mother taught me to 'choose my battles carefully'. Then after years of meditation I saw something that was an AH HA (!) for me. I saw that when you resist something, you add your energy to it and it grows even more. So... fight the government.... you add your own life force to the pattern in operation. Meanwhile, your life force is spent in the fight. All the revolutions, overthrows of past governments, and political fights have simply added more energy to the situation until we have.... TPTB today... UGH!

For a long time I did not see a way out of this. It seemed to me that the matrix we live in is so horrid... yet I could not see a way to begin to dissolve it. Then ... finally I realized that I needed to stop the war. And in order to do this I needed to stop the war inside myself. I needed to withdraw my energy from resisting and from disapproval and... from all forms of hate and judgement. I needed to allow ... to allow everything and everyone to be as they are... and to love them and see them as perfect.

I have been diligently working away at this project for a large part of my life now. The result is a life that is really and truly amazing. My life is abundant, I am free of strife, I am filled with peace... and I am still going ever deeper into looking for any places within me where hate and resistance still reside.

I think this is a good video for education... but I do NOT agree that we must WORK (ie FIGHT) for our rights and our freedom. We have done this for centuries... and look at how effective this effort has been.

Still, if you need to fight and this seems to be the way for you to remain free then I support you 100%. You are doing exactly the right thing for you and for your life.

Operator

25th April 2014, 14:58

---
I think this is a good video for education... but I do NOT agree that we must WORK (ie FIGHT) for our rights and our freedom. We have done this for centuries... and look at how effective this effort has been.
---

When I watch videos like the ones where people 'travel' with unregistered cars and without driving license I enjoy the
idea behind it and their attempts to practice what they preach. At the same time I feel that it is an enormous struggle
and in the end a lot of cases do not end with the desired result. So it must be a very conscious choice to do so.

That said I feel on the other hand that we cannot go along with the system either because we've done that for too
long also and we can anticipate where that ends.

I was triggered however by the word 'education' that you used. I've used the example of witness many times before
and I think it touches the subject here again. When you educate of initiate yourself you become conscious (witness)
of what is at play in the core of the case. Everything happening after that moment makes it a conscious experience
and therefor loads more responsibility on your shoulders. You no longer have the excuse to claim you didn't know ...

So, isn't that the general dilemma with all the truth- and fact finding we're doing? It obliges us to take the next
step ... consciously ! That's why the sentence was exactly chosen as it is in the Matrix:

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends,
you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in
Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

sigma6

26th April 2014, 08:38

Interesting feedbacks, and you bring up a good points, this is not for the faint hearted, this isn't a get out of jail free card, this isn't about a free ride. It's about a personal philosophy of self education, and freedom of choice, including choosing how you want to live. The knowledge we are seeking is NOT taught in public schools. There is a specific reason for this. Because this kind of knowledge empowers people over others. I am not looking for power over others. I want to have the power to neutralize those who would seek power over me.

And at the very least have the power to be able to recognize, identify and control public servants. If you got a job as a public servant then you have a moral and professional responsibility to operate within a very specific scope of conduct. Irregardless how "corrupt" the system is, or how corrupt your boss might be, etc, etc... This isn't the power to rule over others, just the power to exercise your rights and operate a system that was put in place for your benefit. And if we are not receiving that benefit, we have to fix it. It shouldn't have to be us, but sometimes that is required.

The best example is numerous customer service companies I come in contact with, it always reminds me of the legal parallel, but in a more simpler, perhaps less intimidating perspective. And it is another growing trend and has practical application. But the principal is the exact same. These people are trained and obligated to operate according to certain fundamental principles, they are in a position of responsibility and trust. There is no question that they are governed by codes of conduct based on well defined principles. But if you come across an ignorant, manipulative, agent, with an attitude problem, who is avoiding taking any responsibility and going so far as to manipulate you or deny you proper due service that you know you are entitled to, as a paying customer or a receipt holder, who may even be a cousin of the supervisor or owner... I don't care.

There is a higher principle that tells me that I HAVE A DUTY to do what I CAN DO to make sure that I DON"T HAVE TO EVER DEAL with this nonsense ever again. And if others benefit, that is collateral. But if I succeed in pointing out the errors and violations through whatever protocols are required, then EVERYONE benefits, even the deviant agent. (even if only because he learns a life lesson in the long term, he still benefits, worse case scenario) And there is nothing more gratifying then accomplishing that, whether in court or in a company. One doesn't always succeed. But you would be amazed at what happens when you follow your principles and follow your truth. There is no doubt in my mind there is a "hidden" system to things. Is it easy? not at all, but when you know what you are doing, and know what you are trying to accomplish and you are confident in the process, you will persevere and see it through, and... more then 80-90% of the time get what you set out to accomplish. And the real reward is that you now have a record, and you will receive better service and treatment in the future. (In some case I have even been offered a job... lol)

re: Getting educated on becoming a sovereign? There is an assumption in your statement, that you were taught accurate knowledge, but you are taking issue with what happened to you. That would indicate to me that maybe it wasn't. But I don't know what you were taught, how well you learned it, how effectively you applied it. So there is no way to judge. And there should never be a guarantee. One can teach you to play chess, or checkers, or law. But there is no guarantee that you will win every game of chess, checkers or every court case you take up. The issue is more about self knowledge and confidence in your knowledge. The rest comes naturally. If you are not "feeling" that. That might be an indication there is more to learn.

Personally I know that I am looking at many more years. I don't consider that I really know anything but just starting to scratch the surface. It's going to take a minimum of a decade to get a handle on things, and there are various projects in the interim. i.e. It's just a life choice. I have had someone recently ask me about helping another become "Sovereign" I don't think people are completely aware of what they trying to accomplish. This is too vague. It's just a word, that if broken down and researched could take you into years and years of study... And in the end you might find that being a sovereign wasn't in fact exactly what you thought it was you intended or needed.

The truth is more subtle then complex. But there is a never ending learning curve. Just like there is for say learning English. You can spend 1 to 5 years, say, learning how to speak English, or you can spend a lifetime, and you will uncover levels of knowledge and insight, not amenable to the average man. There is more to learning a language then just spelling and grammar and discourse. And anyone thinking otherwise is just kidding themselves...

I myself believe the solution lies in studying trust law, or private trust interpretation. But that too is just a word. And if you discover what it is about you will realize it is something we would all wish we had started learning when we were children. And in fact some have been taught these principles when they were children, and do not even know that they did... And some were taught intentionally and overtly, to specifically apply it intentionally in their lives. I think they are called the "super wealthy, or elite" And this would also apply to certain individuals in the Legal Class, and those who would become Judges or high political offices, (why most lawyers take these jobs) etc. I don't think they operate or title themselves as sovereigns. Quite the opposite, They are in fact public servants. But the higher the level, the more they know about trust, and how it operates, and I intend to find out what I need to know, so that I can take advantage of what it means to be a true beneficiary. Because I was given a certificate that would indicate to me, that in fact, serves as a notice there exists something of value for me in a private trust. That there is a remedy in that certificate, for my use and benefit. And the only thing I need educate myself in is how to take advantage of that... (and that might still take a few years...) Sorry no short cuts.

Dawn

27th April 2014, 06:27

STR

28th April 2014, 23:07

ThePythonicCow

29th April 2014, 01:11

ThePythonicCow

29th April 2014, 01:26

You could watch this video 10, 20 times, and learn everything in this video and you'd never be a target for the police again...

Most of my family feel what this guy is recommending is just going to make confrontations unnecessary by blowing out of proportion some happenings the media focuses on purposely just to gain the same types of negative ratings.
...
Lastly, has anyone including this lawyer givin any thought or consideration to the poor people pulled over after one of the guys watching this video pulls this stuff? Talk about poking the bear!
Well said, STR. Thanks.

===

Let's say I own some land, fully, free and clear, with no claim to the contrary from the BLM or any other person, corporation, or government entity. Well, then, by law, I figure I'd have a right to walk across that land, right?

Let's say there is a hungry mountain lion on that land.

Will my legal rights mean a damn to that lion if he sniffs my tasty presence? Not much. There will likely be a confrontation, and unless I am properly armed and prepared, I will lose that confrontation, and Avalon will be looking for a new Admin.

(And unlike mountain lions, the chances that I could ever be sufficiently well armed and prepared to engage in, and win, a war against the United States or any agency it chooses to fully support are exactly zero.)

Legalistic arguments, even if right (and as I just noted in my previous post, this legal argument has at least one gaping logical hole), won't avoid confrontations ... won't guarantee that you are never a target for the police again.

Indeed, as STR notes, it may well increase the chances of you being a target for the police.

===

It is important to know one's rights. It is also important to make sensible choices as to when and how to pursue those rights.

I usually show hungry mountain lions, and cops looking to issue speeding tickets, the full appearance of respect, regardless of my inner thoughts of them.

STR

29th April 2014, 01:41

sigma6

30th April 2014, 19:51

Sigma6: There is a higher principle that tells me that I HAVE A DUTY to do what I CAN DO to make sure that I DON"T HAVE TO EVER DEAL with this nonsense ever again. And if others benefit, that is collateral. But if I succeed in pointing out the errors and violations through whatever protocols are required, then EVERYONE benefits, even the deviant agent. (even if only because he learns a life lesson in the long term, he still benefits, worse case scenario) And there is nothing more gratifying then accomplishing that, whether in court or in a company. One doesn't always succeed. But you would be amazed at what happens when you follow your principles and follow your truth. There is no doubt in my mind there is a "hidden" system to things.

Yes, I totally agree. I think your tenacity and determination to learn the truth and to bear witness to what is actually going on is VERY important indeed. I believe that when
:rant:
:violin:
:censored:
we stop running, and stop pretending that everything is OK... well, then change happens. There is something so very powerful about being willing to witness without interfering. The very act of SEEING changes the event. Here is one of my all time favorite movie scenes. I think this is the very best depiction I have ever seen of the power which causes change when people are willing to simply witness the truth.

We are all so very powerful... but our power does not come from fighting, rather it comes from our willingness to be consciously aware. The willingness to see, rather than cowering from the truth through unconscious fear and deliberate ignorance, brings us out of our resonance with the victim position TPTB would like us to remain in. I am so glad you are proceeding with this in the way that you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdW1BlDtcyU

Well said Dawn this speaks to me... and I give do give you credit for trying to do the research and study... I know the sacrifice and commitment that is involved, but I am sure that you now know that you have stepped into a rabbit hole that is bigger and deeper than anything anyone could have ever imagined. On a more practical level re: your post, I might suggest an author in the US, Pete Hendrickson, who wrote a book called Cracking the Code (and has an email list). A complete deconstruction of the IRA scam. Again no short cut, but this guy has been attacked and harassed by government agents and has stood the test of time and prevailed. It is stunning and overwhelming when you realize this has been going on in one form or another since the time of the Roman Empire...

But getting back to your response... :) This hits the fundamental idea. I totally agree, our very existence and consciousness is so under rated. It's like society is designed to keep us from contemplating truth, the very idea of stealing our time seems to be the new hidden agenda. Isn't that essentially what a prison is? And consciousness is tied to perception of time as well. Consciousness is a huge part of what is going on... thanks for sharing that...

And... I can see from a few of the posters, the good cop BS stuff is creeping in... All crime syndicates have stooges, and talk the good talk, but that doesn't wash. Sorry but it is a load of pig trough BS. They are making millions draining millions of families of food off their table... to feed their huge gravy train. It's so vast you can't see the edges of it. It's a large financial corporation. In our province the cities are set up as for profit corporations. The courts are lists as for profit corporations. The police unions are set up as for profit corporations, and are all listed on Dunn & Brad Street. The Police Unions are listed as owners of the corporation of the city, they are in.

When the guy said they are solely trying make money he meant it literally. The cops may not know everything, that is just part of the infrastructure. Neither do PhD chemist necessarily know they will be killing millions either. But that is called plausible deniability, it doesn't justify anything.

There was a fiasco a few years back because Guardian Angels were coming to establish a support network and were immediately attacked by the police. Just the same as corner stores are attacked by the government for wanting to distribute alcoholic beverages (yep not allowed in Canada!) And the reason is the same in BOTH cases it's about MONEY and monopoly CONTROL of that MONEY. It can't get any more superficial and hypocritical imo.

Cops who are always crying poor and demanding more money, more money... and then when offered assistance by people who don't tax or require any funds, they attack them? It would just be too embarrassing, the contrast would be too stark. No amount of programming or propaganda would be able to stop people from seeing the obvious. This is a job that can be done by volunteers. When you add in infrastructure, equipment, pensions, you are looking at a glorified security guards the public is paying over $50 an hour for, (even higher when you factor in media programming) to do what? ticket you 90% of the time for even more money. More money for the courts, more money for the lawyers, more money for the jails, more money for the government. The governments function is suck off excess wealth to control it's citizenry, a literal parasite. Don't believe it. If you have the guts and conviction go tour a jail. And realize over 60% of those people shouldn't be in there, except that the institution has got control of their birth certificate master account and funding bonds and creating funds from securities. Essentially 3rd party billing the government. Just because most people are ignorant of this changes nothing. It's the fundamental principle of it. The US is turning into a Police State and the global statistics prove it. Canada is no better off.

A corporation is a pyramid, its primary function is not organization but to concentrate and leverage power, pyramids = power concentration, from atomic physics to political social structures.... Pyramids = a Power Concentration Apparatus. And btw the internet is proof we have more stable, more efficient and a more cost effective "modus apparatus" then pyramid structures, don't be fooled.

But getting back, add now some more real statistics; like construction workers have a more dangerous job in terms of mortality then donut eaters, I mean ticket money printers, I mean cops ;p... Again it's all this BS television programming (more millions spent) to create this false illusion. Pure unadulterated steamy crap. There will always be 'good guys' in the forces, that's a suckers play... They are the easiest to manipulate, by people who study "criminal psychology" And if there are so many "good cops" why aren't they reporting the rot and graft and bribes and criminal networks that run rife from top to bottom? Never hear about it, I have seen cops coming up on charges of dealing dope inside prisons, though "commit suicide" before they made it to trial... oops! Make a gay hollywood tv series about that... In fact I have heard "House of Cards is that... (but that's another story... ;)

Take away all the propaganda and BS and media programming and you have mediocre IQ thugs, blindly working for corporations, and their #1 priority is CONTROLLING society by financially draining the life blood from the "citizenry"... a system that goes back to Roman times. It was purposely and is inherently designed that way.

Actors wearing costumes on hollywood productions sets funded by corporations that in turn drain the government and people of billions is a pathetic joke and has absolutely zero to do with what is really going on...

sigma6

30th April 2014, 20:31

Wanna another good "CONSPIRACY"?
What The Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License
He may have legal credentials, but he failed, or never took, basic logic :).
At about 1:04:54, talking about section (b), items (1), (2), and (3), he claims that all three of (1), (2), and (3) must be proven to be guilty of a speeding ticket when operating a non-commercial vehicle.

No ... under Texas law, I (as a non-commercial vehicle operator in the state of Texas) must comply with all three of the requirements (1), (2), and (3), and a failure to comply with any of those three requirements puts me in violation of the law.

A prosecuting attorney, claiming that I am in violation of that section, needs to show that I did NOT do all of (1) AND (2) AND (3), which he can do by proving that I failed to do at least one of (1) OR (2) OR (3).
From De Morgan's Laws (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws):

"not (A and B)" is the same as "(not A) or (not B)"

Unfortunately Paul I have to remain vigilant and skeptical whenever you respond to any of my posts, as I consider your "passive-aggressive" tendencies less then forthcoming. But I guess that is no secret given our past interactions.. and just after having "accidentally" moved one of my threads into another section without any notice? (just guessing it was you, you can confirm or deny, your choice...)
I just needed to put my opinion on the record for future reference ... ;) and I see the old... "indirect third party mutual back patting conversation routine is back.. :rolleyes: lol...

I would respond as this... what you are talking about is statutory law. Which is by definition an oxymoronic concept. It is a trick played on the public by offering them their own money back to them in the form of "benefits and privileges" It's there own money because ALL WEALTH is produced by the people. ALL of it, the government manages it (as a trustee) And they take a huge slice for themselves for their own reward. But make no mistake, ALL WEALTH is created by the people. Government and Banks do NOT create money out of thin air, they are borrowing money from you, your children and your grand children, and squandering it on bombs, tanks, atomic weaponry, mercenary armies, and then kicking it back into the private at a discount to their cronies. You get bread and circuses. The roads were built by people, the building were built by people, the trains, planes and automobiles were built by people. The corporations (dead legal entities created by man to serve it's creator's interest) Were used to build the factories with "money borrowed" from banks which is really a form or credit derived from securities and bonds which ultimately all go back to securities backed by the ACTUARIAL VALUE BASED ON THE LIFETIME OF LABOUR OF PEOPLE via Birth Certificates.

That is why the EVERYONE in the Government IS YOUR SERVANT. Because hidden behind the facade of oxymoronic "Statutory Law" is a trust system, and THAT is the REAL system, the foundation upon which that facade is based on. Where the people (not statutorily defined legal persons, which are really sole sub corporations) but PEOPLE. And they are recognized as the TRUE CREDITORS to ALL PHYSICAL AND NON PHYSICAL PROPERTY... ALL PROPERTY (which is really more about "Right to use") in the public, especially "government property". Again the best example I could come up with and I have used before... Let's say 50 people decid to open a restaurant business and each contributed say $5,000 and then each was obligated to also take an "employee" position within the business (corporation) What would they be first? ... "employees" or "stakeholders" ? Think about as you follow along... When looked at this way, it's retarded how simple it is... Forget for now why you don't have this control, that is part of the programming, the propaganda. And in this imaginary "business" you hired an outside manager and accountant. (why? because maybe you were tricked by a mobster family who presented themselves as personal saviors who duped one of your stakeholders with a bribe to get an introduction for an interview... lol... humor me... )

So the manager and the accountant then proceed to scheme to "take over the business" and start making "rules" (corporate policies, ie. similar to statutory laws...) and that any "employee" that violates them, will be "punished" (for the benefit and to protect the interests of the corporation) by having their check deposited into said manager's and accountants bank accounts and if they don't comply they will be not allowed to go "home" but kept in the newly installed (and paid for out of company funds!) "holding cell"... Now don't forget this is all for YOUR BENEFIT in the interest of protecting the corporation! according to the "manager's" duty (trustee obligation) to ensure that he is making sure the corporation is making a profit.

So there are two sets of laws here... One is just the company policies... like "anyone caught pouring themselves a coffee and not paying for it, is liable to a fine of $50.00 payable to the accountant, and so on... ok, so it is easy to see the parallel. But at anytime if the "employees" wake up and realize what is going on they can take their manager and accountant to task. And they can say "over ride these "corporate policies" and just take funds from my account to balance any accounts based on an amount that I consent to. Now the confusing part is that some of these "corporate policies" sound legitimate... the manager can make it a corporate policy for example that you can't steal from another employee, (sounds legit right?) but in fact that is already a more fundamental LAW. But if the manager tries to implement the justice in a case where theft is discovered, he can "administer" and arbitrate the whole affair privately within the corporation. Maybe charge the "guilty" party (he'd make the accountant his buddy, the judge for example. So he is not really a judge but a "magistrate" and then fine one party say $500 dollars (to go into their own account again) and put them into the "holding cell" AND while he's "serving his punishment" they also have to take control of his company account, (again as trustees with obligation) and of course take part for themselves and part to provide the "services" the "manager" is providing... according to the "magistrates" "order" and so on and so on...

So that is what you are talking about kissing up to a corporate employee because you forgot that you are not only working as an employee, but that in fact you are one of the creditors, one of the principals. And that at any time in any situation you could technically take the manager aside (in private) based on these higher truths and facts, and more fundamental laws.

In the case of the video... Those other "laws" are the inherent rights that he is speaking about... And even further to this "metaphor" ... if in fact you did get caught for eating a piece of pie (hey maybe you were hungry! guilty as charged...) you could turn around and say to the "manager" look I don't feel like paying $50 to you and the accountant, and I want to go home to my own bed tonite, why don't you talk to the accountant and tell him to offset the cost of the pie from my pay or from my security interest in the company. But thanks for the offer of your "services" but I think I don't consent to that today and I will be "waiving your offer to contract" i.e f*** you, and why am I even talking to you, now that I know you are a parasitical scumbag, why haven't I even fired you yet (DUUHHHHH!!!)
How real is this metaphor??? HOW REAL We have cases where people have stood up and told the prosecutor, duty counsel/public defenders AND "Judges" They are fired!!! THINK ABOUT IT... THINK WHAT JUST HAPPENED...

Now the above example may be simplified... but make no mistake...
Regardless how convoluted they have made it, regardless how ignorant you are of how this system works, regardless of how vicious and desperate "they" get when you attempt to exercise these rights KNOW this is the TRUE REALITY.... THIS IS WHAT IS HIDDEN FROM YOU.... And anyone knowing about this and not desiring to operate in the latter example would be a fool in my opinion...

Cheers :)

The government is like a yeast in bread, it's a parasitical organism by definition and function as are most government servants, and within the right context they can and do serve a useful purpose, but if the yeast should completely take over and consume the dough, well it would probably consume and kill you if you tried to eat of that bread!.... ;)

ThePythonicCow

30th April 2014, 20:52

sigma6

30th April 2014, 21:15

Duly noted, and good luck with that... and now that is on the table others can "keep an eye out" too ;) ...regarding the thread it was the post on flight M370 that was in the conspiracy section that you appended someone elses thread too... and for some unknown reason it was moved into general news or something ...anyhow, not to bother, it's been dealt with...

Re: video ... in case you missed it he was clearly making reference to two forms of law... Statutory law (apparently what you are talking about...) and laws that recognize our inherent rights, not rights as employees of a corporation which most are fooled into thinking are real rights, when in fact they are "privileges and benefits".

Statutory law operates in probate courts which almost all lower courts are. It recognizes that a trustee is acting on the property of a dead person, the same system it applies to the NAME (which is in fact also a registered property in the public) Which is represented by the Birth Certificate, which is clearly defined as a corporation , and in legal terms is known to be a dead entity. i.e someone else has to "move" operate it... now less frequently referred to as a "straw man" (and thanks God!) It's known as a legal "fiction" meaning it was created as a "convenience" for "some other purposes". And if you are not operating and controlling your "Person" (corporation) Trust principles dictate that someone else will for you... If this is sounding slightly occult, it is because IT IS!... People who ignore this or are not aware of this are usually the folks that call people who do "paranoid"...

Considering the state of the world we live in today, I don't think people being too paranoid is at issue... I would have to say it is 180 degrees the opposite...

Anyhow, rights on the other hand are considered inalienable, as in no can put a "lien" on them... because they are universal, inviolate, sacrosanct, God given, your birthright... no one can take away your rights, you can only "sleep" on them... (as in when someone suggests you should let your guard down because maybe you are being too "paranoid" .... lol) But corporate 'systems' have been set up for the sole purpose of literally scheming people out of these rights, and the POLICE are a huge part of this scheme. Why they are all being reprogrammed, militarized and chosen according to specific IQ criteria... all verifiable...

And I would advise people to not be "afraid" to be a little "paranoid" ... All that "glitters" is not gold.... With rare exception, vigilance is a virtue and a much lacking quality we don't have enough of. Keep your head up, be aware of what is going on around you, even here at Avalon. There are many people with many agendas... and all will benefit from this practice...

re: your last point... I think I kept it as simple as it gets...

sigma6

3rd May 2014, 16:36

Oh... here's the icing on the cup cake... this just in... anyone feel free to confirm or deny... Texas Rules of Procedure creates a "presumption" that states that you have to state you are not a corporation, otherwise the "presumption" stands... (that you are one) This is a perfect example of how "presumptions" operate inside the jurisdiction of their statutory courthouse system...

"Presumptions" are super easy to overcome, you simply rebutt them. i.e. maintain otherwise, waive, do not consent to, or even better establish your own presumption, one which they are now required to disprove or refute (and thus expose their "fraud", which they won't do...) the trick is knowing what the "presumptions" are... and if you don't even know "presumptions" exist... where does that leave you???

gripreaper

3rd May 2014, 17:16

Well, I'm still on the fence here. I've challenged the drivers license, with full understanding that I am not a statutory citizen or a legal fiction, I was NOT driving a motor vehicle, by definition, and I was NOT operating in commerce as per USC code.

I am a private soul (I use soul because individual and person are legal terms) traveling in my private conveyance (motor vehicle is a legal term) as a householder, not a US citizen or a "resident" (also legal terms).

I stood outside the bar at the hearing, refused to create joinder, and the judge entered a plea for me, set the date for trial, and ignored my standing and my rebuttal of their presumption. At trial, since I had been tricked into joinder, I built a perfect case based on THEIR rules and laws, and the judge ruled against me and said, I do not agree with your conclusions and my conclusion is: And he sited the states motor vehicle code! He also said I could appeal the case if I so chose.

So, I could continue to fight and take the case to a higher court, spend more time, money and energy, and still not get remedy...

OR...

I could pay the fine, the increased insurance premiums, the license renewal fees, the vehicle registration fees, and fly under the radar and follow all the statutory rules of the road, as a good little slave, and get on with my life as peaceful as possible.

The actual cost of compliance versus the "fight" approach is actually cheaper, takes less time, and is less stressful. They recognize this, and that is why most people (if you go to court) just plead guilty, pay the fine, and get on with their lives. Yea, it sucks, but fighting them would have cost me thousands instead of a few hundred, years of my time, and they ignore you and don't listen to you anyway.

Oh I know, I "didn't do it right" otherwise I would have won. Maybe I forgot the entry of appearance to come into court as a live man instead of a dead corporate person. Maybe I forgot to present my birth certificate as an exhibit and claim that this is what they want and who they are charging. Maybe I didn't properly go after the prosecutors, the bond, the "behind the scenes" events taking place. Maybe, since the administrative magistrate is under a military state of emergency and is a collection agent for the bankruptcy, he cannot hear me no matter what I say or what my standing is, or he always rules against the "driver" as he presumes you ARE and cares not what the higher court might say. Maybe I should have invoked the trust and appointed the judge as trustee and ordered him to discharge the matter.

I chose to "choose my battles" as Dawn is saying, although I totally agree with sigma and he is correct on his assessment of what is really going on. Be mindful of what is taking place around us, and how those who are miscreant and who stand for truth and are exposing the fraud, are being singled out, labeled, ostracized, and we could very well soon see them either bankrupted, as Dawn pointed out, marginalized and unable to operate in commerce, or worse, hauled off under some pretense of national security or whatever. They're upping their game.

And yet, I honor Jerry and Joe Kane, Billy Faust, and others who stood for the truth and went out to share it with others, and paid with their lives. It seems they don't like it when you go out on the circuit and do seminars. Dean Clifford is STILL incarcerated since Nov 24th of last year. Haven't heard anything lately. Santos just wrote a promissory note and his issue went away? Don't think so.

What's it going to take? More people waking up to the truth. WE don't get to choose the catalyst where enough souls are ready to make the change. It typically happens when the pain of the status quo becomes greater than the pain of change. We're not there yet, but if the Bundy siege is any indication, we could be close. The land grab has been going of for decades, with very similar cases all around the west, and why was it the Bundy siege that got people motivated? Don't know. Could be the alignment of galactic plane and the incoming energies for all I know, but it will happen when it happens.

gripreaper

3rd May 2014, 17:54

I stand corrected. This just came out yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40MqT0Yh_Z4

onawah

3rd May 2014, 20:23

Now, these surveillance cameras I LIKE!! :nod:

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1964833_728872463822149_1896695582_n.jpg

sigma6

3rd May 2014, 20:53

In a word Grip... more accurate information and knowledge, other than that... I can see you are really laying out my work for me...haha! here goes... :)

Like all life long learning, rote memory apprehension, comprehension, and then internalization, and only then, creative reasoning within that environment... and with all due respect. There is a lot I would 'pick at' even in the brief description you posted... know that you have my highest, highest respect for sharing this, and even daring to go in there and try. We both know the risks and the fallout... especially now, that the game is getting more serious... we (the plebs, barbarians, foreigners, enemies of the State, etc.. otherwise known as citizens) are at the proverbial gate... AND THEY KNOW IT.

You're really tempting me here... Very honestly spoken Grip... I can only re-emphasize. I am not suggesting everyone run out and challenge the court system this week. I am suggesting everyone accept the truth that there is a system in place more diabolical than you can possibly imagine. (and I have a pretty good imagination) And to start waking up to that NOW!!!! I wouldn't suggest anybody take any action for at least a couple of years. I did after 18 months and I was INCREDIBLY LUCKY (too lucky maybe, it created a false confidence and following, so maybe that was my karma doing what was right for me, I have learned this much) But even then just try with only parking tickets, don't expect success (depending) but treat it as an experiment, keep a record, discuss with your mastermind group. Condition yourself mentally. And yes they are reacting, like the "machines" in the Matrix and adjusting and making things harder. But the first step is to accept the absolute truth of the matter. That will be the only way you will be able to maintain motivation. YOU ARE LIVING IN A PRISON. Or Martial law. Corporate Policy. Then maybe after 5 years, depending on your study and research skills you might consider something more serious, but you are always going to need to practice caution. When Winston says "If it's not fun, you aren't doing it right" That doesn't mean he is laughing and joking in court. Quite the contrary, he is deadly serious in his conviction and approach. He is talking about the overwhelming feeling of empowerment that comes when you do finally get results. And that feeling can be euphoric, a drug, (Like you have solved the riddle in a video game... after trying more then 50 to 100 times!!!! (Dragon's Den...lol) Also, like you very accurately point out and as I have stressed, like any life changing educational pursuit, this is not about short term gain, (except unless you are motivated by knowing you are seeking truth AND empowering yourself with knowledge in general, that may empower yourself and possibly your children, if you should succeed in following through) There is an undeniable philosophy tied to this, very similar to martial arts. Trust is not a silver bullet, it is a philosophy of right principle, a system that controls the distribution and control of power, balancing that between haves and have nots, educated and uneducated. They tried to teach it to the uneducated with the KJV of the Bible. The problem is people are waking up to the fact that the book isn't the exact and perfect (and Holy) word of God like it is purported to be. Maybe that is why the Vatican kept it in Latin and forbade non-priest class from reading it... (do ya think!!!) The KJV specifically is a book of legal premises, or more correctly philosophical premises, about how people can live together in peace and abundance. About what is equitable. Or what I call trust interpretation. (not to be mistaken with pure commercial equity) And in that context, it is an excellent an viable source, if it were applied with the same conviction as if it were written by God. But as Alan Watts so accurately pointed out, once a religion has lost it "believability" ...it has lost is power... and people start going through the motions, others cynically manipulate it for their own purpose. One interpretation of the "faith" that is described in the Bible (... and I believe there is more than one) is the faith that someone had good intentions in writing it for the masses, and if you should never rise to the level of scholarship, thought and philosophy on everyday living law and commerce, but you only followed the principles of this one book, you would surely prosper spiritually, and in other ways by extension. Even despite it was still conditioning people all along that they should register everything in the public and pay taxes. (and even this was supposed to only apply to "foreigners" and not the "heirs of the kingdom")

Consider... People willingly risk paying into a mortgage (death gamble http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm) for 30 years or more, and it might be argued that it makes sense because they have such limited options, that it is a viable risk. This is exactly the same thing, and with better odds, especially today. The trick is today, there is too much misinformation, there are now "several generations" of "gurus". Technically me and Grip fall into that category. (I don't consider this myself) We know more than the average person (which isn't saying a lot unfortunately...;( and like people who didn't get started with DOS 1.1, up to 6.0 and into Windows 1,2 and 3 and so on... (I think I started on DOS 5,6...) You may not understand the hows and whys of today's Windows 7. (It both helps and hinders, btw, as I am slow to jump on "new technology" or "applications" and get stuck in the more "technical" maintenance aspect)

On the other hand I should add, if you know where to look the information has been organized, there are many people who have done processes that are public on the internet, Mark Hollywood, put his entire process on the internet, but I haven't been able to get through it all and find his explanations incredibly convoluted. Not that this is a bad sign, but it needs another level of processing to make it amenable to a wider audience imo. And I know people are working on establishing a trust arrangement on the public side to make reference to the existing trust in such a way that we can speak to it in the public. Again I am still wrapping my head around how accurate this interpretation is... but the idea is that it goes beyond just defensively protecting ourselves when they create "liabilities in the public" against the NAME Estate we were entitled to use. But a revisited 1099-OID process. I believe the process was absolutely valid, but it was lacking proper interpretation and application... Again it now can be clearly seen to a trust interpretation, since it was involving a return to original issue. Which would involve some private side process. And both of these concepts/interpretations were missing at the time (pre- CW's New Trust Technology, etc...) Winston was hinting, but wouldn't spill the beans, has always been his style... :( And now there is what appears to be a Canadian process, which I am intently looking at as we speak. t5008.... (but this is definitely another story!... ) None of this stuff was even on the radar in the level of comprehension available as today. People are accumulating and processing and deconstructing more information today. I very much like looking back at past understanding of stuff I have viewed and it really is like being a grade 8 student looking at my grade 3 homework. (but I am still only and "grade 8"... ;o )

Point is people DO have to be VERY careful, who your "mentor" is... But even getting involved enough to know what to look for is a skill, and I would agree Bill Foust and Gerry Kane were definitely people you couldn't get enough of, each in their own way. But they were also imperfect human beings as well, and they made errors of judgement or (Kane's son probably did) And paid dearly for it. Never, ever, ever take anything for granted, take your risk in a calculated fashion, make sure there are many supporters for both moral and psychological support, etc..

Now (the scary part...) to comment, based on what info you provided... Although I speak "metaphorically" about the dynamic of "going into court" that is a combination of my limited expression and using something that everyone understands. I am wholly believing more and more in "trust interpretation". And I don't share everything because it would be physically impossible to accurately lay out all the information I have come across and studied and the context of reference and appeal to authority and personal and other's directly shared experiences... God knows I have dumped a few nuggets on the site, and these 'reports' have also allowed me to develop my own thought, there is something about publicly publishing your information that changes the dynamics of what you study... I am very encouraged to see buds of inquisitive members asking the hard questions... Has this site attracted someone who could make a difference? ...I don't think so. If only because there is an undeniable clique nature involved. There is a wariness, a certain level of necessary privacy. Dean Clifford is an example of a guy who was brilliant on many accounts, I didn't agree with his common law approach or his views on ownership... But I absolutely believed because of who he is, that he would invariably move in that direction. In fact based on my conversations and what he presented at the November Seminar, that is where he was going. Equity and trust interpretation. Cestui Que and Usu-fruct (without the dash! ;) I could clearly see he was moving in that direction, and was looking forward to see what would happen when he applied his intellect and resources to its study and application... and apparently I wasn't the only one observing this...

Re the Bundy situation... the answer to that proves a very simple fact. 1) the Government are a bunch of money grubbing cowards. 2) Those people were willing to put their lives on the line. 3) They left because they were quite simply outnumbered and outgunned... 4) It just shows how what people think is "law" is a bunch of horsesh** being shovelled in your face by people with guns. And when push comes to shove. And enough people show up. The government will run away like a scared chicken and screw the "legal principles" It's just laughable... THERE WAS NO LAW THERE AT ALL, IT WAS A CORPORATION EXERCISING A RIGHT TO PLUNDER AND PIRACY. And then when they found out there were more people with more guns, they simply packed their bags and hightailed their cowardly a**es out of there... Really what excuse could they make this time when dead bodies started coming out... That Bundy was an occult cow farmer, and hoarding weapons on site. They targeted him because he has something. They want. I also suspect that because his family has been there so long that his deed to the land might be one that is outside the jurisdiction of todays courts, because the whole process of how land registration and deeds were created all changed, especially after 1933... Back then it was privately owned. Today it is collectively owned in the public...

So yes absolutely, (besides lawyers) I don't think you can succeed today without staying outside their jurisdiction and that can only be done by administrative process and the BC. If you consider the implications of my previous post, it totally supports my belief that just going to court "by your own consent" is grounds for presumption of jurisdiction. YOU ARE AN ACTING SOLE CORPORATION. This isn't just Texas, they just spelled it out. So by definition you are walking into an uphill battle, in fact if you sign the request for a court date, that is presumption of jurisdiction right there again! (unless you sign it "without prejudice" with the intention of going there under special appearance as the alleged defendant under duress, (under protest, threat and duress) i.e. against your will, without your consent... solely for the purpose of correcting their mistake in order to protect yourself. And if that is your position I have the 20 court cases that would show just how specifically you better stay within that definition. Because if you don't then they will jump down your throat. btw that is called "special appearance" a statutory reference that you are doing something based on trust interpretation... and when you violate that you are back in "general appearance" (what everyone else is foolishly doing...) In other words... you shouldn't be going into their courthouse, you were never meant to.

Based on some feedback I also believe "they" are duping us by mixing up my interpretation of "Special Appearance" with some kind of statutory interpretation of special appearance. People you have to stop believing everything they tell you. You don't have to be in their jurisdiction, (that is why they have to always "create it") You don't have to recognize their authority (it's your choice) You don't have to step thru the gate, as Grip will now testify too. And you certainly don't have to ask for the Judge's "permission" to be able to be there under "special appearance" that is completely NON sensical... and would defeat the purpose and would no longer be "Special Appearance" by definition!!! (helllooooo!!!) It's a form of civil disobedience, "I am here against my will, but! since I am here, I want to let you know YOU don't have jurisdiction over me... I am only here under protest, threat and duress, as the alleged defendant. When I stated that in one case... the best way to describe the judges reaction, and this might seem funny, but I used to (and thank God I don't any more) but I used to live in an apartment with cockroaches. And I started a campaign to rid them from my apt, and went totally Rambo. Cleaned everything top to bottom... did "surprise checks of my cupboards and closets regularly...and at all hours... long story short, I think I got rid of them, but they were still coming in occasionally from elsewhere... and sometimes when you open a cupboard for the first few seconds you will see them in some delicate hard to reach spot... and they will stop... dead in their tracks... (now that is pretty intelligent behaviour...) and there is me and IT staring each other face to face... That was what the judges behaviour reminded me of... this is sometime similar with mice, rats... it was like his response (they are unto me now and very, very careful not to project anything... so his response was a visible stiffening and sudden silence... it literally shut him up and his arrogant attitude. He became very calculated after that... In retrospect, I now knew that I had come very close to taking a step outside the jurisdiction. But I needed to take more step to follow through... and because I didn't and allowed them to proceed in certain ways and responded equally televised that I didn't understand it completely... BUT HE DEFINITELY VISUALLY "STIFFENED" AS SOON AS I SAID THAT... THEN PROCEEDED VERY METICULOUSLY FROM THAT POINT UNTIL THEY RE-ESTABLISHED THEIR PRESUMPTION. They do have a system we don't fully understand...

The idea that you think you created the "perfect argument" is pointless given the context I am describing above. Although technically it can be done, maybe if you can show there is no "contract" but again I don't want to put myself into a disadvantage. That's their game... So to say that... is only your ego talking. You're in the wrong court, with presumptions operating, that you are not aware of and haven't properly rebutted, and if you did verbally, your being there and arguing for a NAME that you don't hold legal title to would say the opposite, double mindedness, grounds for calling a psyche eval... that's their game...

Now I am sure I just lost 80-90% of my audience right there... (sorry...) I used to not be able to make sense of this myself... But I am now firmly in the school of "administrative process" filing the BC into evidence, unfortunately we have to lay all our cards on the table.. True to the maxim, (or my maxim) "...The game is won or lost in the first moves..." This is a game between elites, willing risk takers, it is honourable to allow the other party the option of backing down... Yes they may be hypocrites (in our eyes...) but we don't have that option. And again it must be hard for people to fathom how on earth can you possibly even CONSIDER not showing up to court!!!???? And again I must emphasize to all the ignorant people who can't even conceptualize this.... DON'T EVEN CONSIDER trying it... DO CONSIDER CONTEMPLATING IT... and KNOW there is truth to this, I speak from direct experience. I know others who have shared their experience...

The only way I would show up in court today is under a very strict definition of "Special Appearance" and my only argument essentially is that "I shouldn't be there" (and why...) And that is a very specific and specialized approach in terms of what you would say and do... and what you wouldn't say and do...) i.e there very would be NO OTHER TOPIC OR ISSUE coming from my mouth. I would not answer to anything they say. It is true you should NEVER MAKE ANY STATEMENTS or ARGUMENTS in court, that is instant jurisdiction. With the EXCEPTION of "Special Appearance" That is the narrow gate in statutory law in my interpretation now.

I am going to guess btw, that you must have been surprised when you figured out that the world didn't come crashing down on your head when you figured out a diplomatic way of not entering into the gate!! (???) You can't directly refuse anything in a court setting, (contempt and dishonour) But if you simply ignore and continue. They can't do anything, when they grab people you committed a contempt. That alone must have awoken some sense in you, that there is more going on than what meets the eye. Yes? Because even I have succumbed and fell back into overlooking this... (so powerful is the negative thinking of others who convinced me my own experiences were just "flukes" "random" had "no meaning", etc, etc, ad nauseum) My fault for not trusting my own experience... (duhh...)

I am not going to go into what you should do, (any more then I have, and that is only in case you are forced to show up there...) but to simplify and say just don't go. And start wrapping your brain around that concept as quickly as possible. The latest story I got was someone like you, with decent knowledge went in tried in vain, got a judgement against them, but did go back and filed the BC into the court case and they have reported the "judgement" has "disappeared".... Now apply your logic to that. Could that process be considered private? Check! Does it fit a trust interpretation? Check! Would it be consistent with their previous action of trying to maintain the position they did in court? Check! Has this weird disappearance thing happened more then once under similar conditions? Check!

All this btw points up to another issue, that I am trying to get across... if you are trying to use feedback from them, which I used to at the beginning, you can't do that anymore either, they are onto us, they are covering their facial expressions, and gestures and things they say, (and I have heard and seen some major "doozeys" ...lol) There is still some reactions, a quick few brief seconds where you can see the state of shock, or as one put it, they saw them go ashen turn their face away and "crumple" I know these observations, intuitions are valid, especially in light of the context of what they said... but they last only seconds sometimes, as they are learning to become more guarded, and you still have to take in the entire context as well.

There is absolutely no doubt we are being singled out, I have been predicting that for a long time based on my own experience... We get isolation, hidden codes put on our records, biased against, treated worse than criminals.. literally worse than criminals. But if you know how to read into this, it should also tell you then, that we are very definitely getting closer to the truth. I have absolutely sensed their fear when they didn't know how much I knew or didn't... the anxiety at certain moments when I knew I was close to expressing the trust and taking control, and also I can see where I blew it in retrospect... it's just like a job interview, you can tell if they are interested or when you just said something that blew the whole interview... you don't have to be psychic...

If you contact me privately I can share more, not that I am holding back, but this is stuff I haven't completely vetted, some of it's recent but from sources I trust but is at a level that presupposes you are up to date on a lot of other concepts, and stuff I am not ready to go public with because I don't feel like dealing with all the "but if I am totally clued out, then it can't possibly exist type arguments.. etc..." I hate saying this, but I too am starting to become wary and more particular. I won't hold back from a specific question. But I am definitely getting more particular in who I correspond with, mostly because out of practical necessity. I too am looking for specific information. I try to look at it like a teacher would, would you expose grade 9 math to grade 1 students? It would only scare and de-motivate them or overwhelm them... Certain basic fundamentals have to be accepted first. Then more ideas on top of that... there is an order of operations... I personally like to start with basic observations, find a general principle, build up that, then try to apply it to more specific events and see if the general principle can explain it... and so on...

sigma6

3rd May 2014, 21:39

ps update your page, I just corrected a dozen typos... :)

genevieve

4th May 2014, 19:04

sigma6--

Thanks so much for your posts. I find them fascinating.

I'm a relative newbie to all this stuff (4 years under my belt), but I do understand a lot of what you're saying (at least I THINK I do :p ).

I would appreciate reading more from you about filing the birth certificate into a case. What does that accomplish? Is it like writing them a check so they can access the account? Is there an affidavit or cover letter or something that accompanies the filing of the birth certificate?

I am asking you on this thread because I think others may be interested, too. And I'm thinking about taking you up on your offer for a PM, but need to do some MORE thinking before I do.

Thank you (and gripreaper, too) for sharing what you do.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

P.S. Love the cockroach analogy!

sigma6

8th May 2014, 23:30

Cool great question, I thought you'd never ask ';)

WHAT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS AND ISN'T

This is not legal advice (It's trust interpretation!) This is not suggested you attempt to try it if you don't explicitly understand everything being said, i.e. you do it taking full responsibility... It's not a game. It's about the highest interpretation there is... Just like I wouldn't suggest you jump into a car and start driving it because I gave description of how to drive and operate a car... it's really all about common sense... not wishful thinking, and then some people are content having other people pilfer millions of dollars out of their account and control your life and ticket you and manage every aspect of yours and your neighbours lives... it makes them feel safer... for me personally you are a living like a mental child, and haven't accepted what it means to be a man or woman. Each to his own... It amazes me how people take pride in "supporting the police" and the "government" I just don't understand that groupie mentality... never did... I have seen similar types inside jails, how they are chummy do gooders with all the cops... good luck with that...! If you want to make your life, living in a prison more comfortable keep sucking up... but there is a whole other reality waiting for you on the other side of the "rainbow" (a visual mirage, resulting in the prismatic separation of white light), pretty, but it's not made of candy lollipops or anything like that... or you can't slide down it like a fun slide at the amusement park... lol... :D it's better to know it for what it is...

In a nutshell this is my interpretation... Base on the research I have done, and conversations with lawyers. The first thing is to understand what the BC is and isn't. The record of live birth is a record of an event, namely the physical birth of a child in a hospital (government institution) There is a record created by the nurse or doctor similar to any ships manifest of cargo. There is also a document filled out by the mother usually the same day or next while she is still under the influence of the 'trauma' of birth or the influence of drugs. Why this is, is a mystery. And the exact procedure varies and is shrouded in a little mystery according to many people who have recollections of these events.

However a record can become a title in trust. And from that a whole series of 'paper' is created. This includes a Master Account, an Estate, Bonds, securities that the government will transfer to banks in exchange for money to be created from, etc. the certificate of birth is evidence of all this... I am not a financial expert, but there is a whole area of study right there...

Now given that context... and based on my own research and experience and conversations. I have verified that 1) It was NEVER INTENDED that recipient use the Birth Certificate as a form of Identification. It does NOT REPRESENT US. It represents something else. i.e. If you owned a store (or corporation, that had the same spelling as your name) Would you claim that you are that Corporation? No of course not, and legally and financially if you did. You could get yourself into a lot of trouble, in essence you could find yourself being saddled with the liabilities that were originally associated with that entity this is a well established principle in "Trust Law".

We also have it from a member that Judith Hartman (the deputy registrar of Ontario) of the Registrar General of Ontario RGO. Specifically confirmed this in stating that it was not even recommended that it be used as a form of identification. Also I have made appointments to meet with a Judge and immediately they turn on a recording device (but explicitly tell YOU that you are NOT allowed to record the same! Then they ask you for some "identification" I only had on me the long and short form BC's - He refused to talk to me until I produced "identification" That's right someone who "purports" (in our minds) to represent the government, doesn't accept the Birth Certificates, document created on Bank Note paper, certified, and registered by the Province of Ontario. Impossible to counterfit on the same level as "dollar bills".

Also I had a conversation with a lawyer to confirm that the BC in and of itself could NEVER be used to "identify" you in ANY court of law... That's right. There is no record of anybody every being identified as DOE, JOHN or JANE when presenting the Birth Certificate in a court of law. If there is I'd like to hear about it, and the interpretation would have to be based specifically on their OWN actions. And then people don't know what "identification" really means in a court... It actually means "the two are treated as one"

Given all this context it should be plain to anyone that "WE ARE NOT THE Birth Certificate" and the only association we have with it, (there is some relationship of course) is that was issued as a result of the Record of Live Birth (RoLB) or Statement of Birth (SoB). And it was issued to us for our "use" "Use" is another word that is actually all about trust has legal connotations and definitions which would equal about 1 to 2 dictionary pages...

In other words, in nutshell I am saying that the Birth Certificate is a certificate which gives the "holder" some right or entitlement. It is a ticket, a warrant,

"A written assurance: of official representation that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred (and it is the event of birth, (that was the RoLB or SoB) or 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."

Most people know how impossible it is to establish "facts" in the legal venue. This document would be an exception to that. Thus why court loathe it's appearance. Besides the fact that it is being presented in the wrong venue, and thus it's presence is also exposure of the fact what everyone who watches too much television thinks is a court, is not, it's a "fake court" a pretend court. It looks like a court, someone who dresses up, and looks like a judge presides over it... But you are in a for profit corporation with an "adjudicator" and so on..
ie. it's an embarrassment to their whole game...

It is a registered organization, according to the Criminal Code Pocket Book (a UN sanctioned document of "statutory" law) Person is defined as follows, (how sneaky does this get...)
"every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization; As you can see everything about this "definition" is highly suspicious, and ambiguous... secretive, and you will find it over and over and over when researching the B.C.

So now... to answer your question... the idea is that we are being "charged". But in fact if you could remove yourself (intellectually, egotistically...) The person you have interest in is being charged. We can't even say, at this point it is "our person" (only colloquially) For it is a registered organization, and a form of legal property. And you are not holding the legal title to it OR the record of Birth that originally caused the chain of events to create it in the first place. That legal title is held by the Registrar, wherever it was registered in the public. Usually a very secretive, physically hard to access location (at least in Canada, and there are slight variation in interpretation between US and Canada in how this is all set up...)

So now picture it this way... The defacto "government" apparatus some kind of corporation in the public acting in a trustee capacity... with a duty to collect funds to pay a debt (whole other story...) Goes around charging the Sole corporations "Person" creating what would be known as "Liabilities in the public" Since you are joint holder, (in our case with Her Majesty, what the equivalent is in the US I don't know...) But we don't know who is the liable party ... you or the Queen... so since you are the nearest identifiable holder, a "Summons" is sent to you It is even phrased in Canada to say something like "you have been summoned to Appear in Her Majesty's Name" Whoa... did you get that...

You are to make an appearance in "HER MAJESTY'S NAME" That should give you an indication whose NAME it really belongs to as far as "legal" title is concerned. And that is the punch line there is NO ONE, but NO ONE who can prove to ANY ONE that they are the legal title holder. Title does not pass with a copy or certificate.

It is clear this was all set up to be operated as a trust. And there is the problem, the research I have shows the the last publicly accredited courses on trust law were removed from the public school system as far back as the late 60's, that's over 50 years ago... 50 YEARS!!!!! From this point of view we are several generations of total and complete incompetents... Which is very dangerous from a trust point of view because if you don't know how to even operate as a beneficiary of a trust in private that you don't even know exists.. Seriously what kind of control do your really think you have...???

So of course you are going to be treated like garbage... Or patronized at best...
But here is the thing... We don't have to become total all encompassing experts in Law, Statutes, Trust... etc.. It certainly doesn't hurt to be educated in anything and I applaud ALL efforts by anyone...

But if you had an unlimited ability to discharge any kind of debt. What would that be worth to you? Each kind of debt might involve a different procedure but this potential is there... The Birth Certificate represents your pledge of your life energy represented in the form of securities and bonds created by the government. When they took legal title, they were taking on a trustee responsibilities, duties and obligations. THEY OWE YOU BIG TIME...

So yes they do have a right to create charges against the Person, because that is the system they created to feed themselves as trustees... And they do have a right to charge it against the "Person" The legal entity, the Title of which they are holding, the evidence being the Birth Certificate they issued to you.

With the proper understanding and context you can use it to offset liabilities in the public that fall under statutory law including criminal law that doesn't involve issues of specific damage to property of third parties, or to other people, or anything fraud related... (ie. not honouring your contracts, etc....)

The other problem is people think they can walk into a court... the court is a form of probate court, meaning, in a nutshell, it is designed to deal with the matters of dead people's Estate...

By the way this is why I am getting more of suspicious of Karen Hudes' true motivations for saying that she was unaware of all this...???? (Whew that was the stinkiest statement she ever made, and why I tend to lean on the disinfo side of the equation. I have talked to lawyers just 6 months accepted to the bar that know this explicitly. (But let's be clear they ARE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED from talking about it in the public outside their society. As a fiduciary responsibility. It IS A SECRET!!!!

And the fact that courts are set up this way... is pretty much a dead giveaway wouldn't you say... So can you see why when you show up in their court you are already beaten, out of your element, clearly ignorant of what is going on, incompetent. And as a probate court, they have fiduciary obligation to manage the whole trust aspect, and when you come in demanding you are the corporation, they MUST treat you as a meddling agent, this is called de son tort trustee, which is latin (for by his own wrongdoing) You will be punished by being treated as the actual trustee... Serves you right!!! :O

The solution is to acknowledge the reality of the trust and operate according to the principle of it. Send the BC along with any charges to the court and tell them that you are authorizing settlement of any liabilities in the public, put a signature on the back of any presentments, maybe a note saying accepted for value, returned for value... photocopy of the BC front and back... Make sure you have a legal proof of delivery and proper filing and instructions. I suggest it be made private for Judge in Case #123456...

And DO NOT SHOW UP TO COURT. You are done...
That is the trick. You have to understand what you just did and why. Because they may try and come after you. But the less record you have with them the less they can "play with" so this actually work flawlessly for people who have never messed and built up huge records (which they need to correct) previously... That's all grounds for presumption that YOU ARE the PERSON...

Now the part that futzes this all up beside the people's total lack of awareness and complete ignorance of these concrete realities... is the fact that you have spent a lifetime, putting your signatures on everything without qualifying that you are only signing on behalf of separate legal entity. That could be a whole thread in itself and for that I suggest people research History of Oath at the LoveforLife website and download the pdf... We have to fix that... because that would fall under the "contracts" interpretation, but still we can fix that problem.. It just is a little stickier and means more work...

Anyhow the point I am getting at is they will try EVERY DIRTY TRICK in the book to make you blink, to argue, to "REFUSE" something (never refuse, always, waive, or decree "I do not consent") They will try and tell YOU that YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP in court or ELSE... and I have seen people fall for this over and over and over... it is really sad, but also proof of how shallow most peoples understanding is... Sorry if this sounds rough, but there is no room to pussyfoot around and stroke peoples egos, you are dealing with super tough lover proponents with a hard on. (just made that one up :O how apropo...)

It really is a test in many ways... (Trust Law is privately learned for the "rich people" NOT YOU silly)
And having this knowledge is why they think they are "superior" to you... and so on...

Anyhow, "they" will play it right to the very end... They may even come and get you (if they know from previous attempts you don't really know what you are doing, and can be manipulated...) This is clearly what is going on with the Dean Clifford situation... He is being tested and baited and so far I got news that he hasn't taken the bait, AND... the Federal Government has totally backed off and left the Province holding the bag!!!!!! ...

They are now treading on that thin ice. If they can't get Dean to concede, consent or sign anything, then they can't issue bid bonds, performance bonds and payments bonds without violating and breaching their fiduciary obligations. They can't even pretend that he consented. They are right now losing money on a bad bet...

But this is also a testament to show you how far they will go to cover up, to maintain the illusion. It is that important to them that people remain asleep, afraid, skeptical, in doubt. It all designed that way, just keep watching those phony cop shows. Don't get me wrong cops serve a function but harassing people who are not committing any crimes is not one of them which is what they do 80-90 percent of the time. And the real criminals must be having a good laugh.

However I don't want to also create this scary episode, they attach this hard, Dean is purposely challenging them on many different fronts... and seeing where they attack and where they back off. He is essentially goading them, playing cat and mouse. He can walk and talk both languages.

For us we are creating NO controversy, I don't argue anything. I just ask questions as a proper beneficiary should. That is how I maintain MY PRESUMPTION which they are required to REBUT or abide by... I am acting in honour helping them settle THEIR liability in the PUBLIC. Assertive absolutely, For example in that 1% chance someone should show up at my door and insist that I go to court (on something I have delivered to the court as suggested above) My first reaction would be to ask them who they are, and by what authority do they have the right to identify me by that NAME... and if asked who I am I will tell them I don't know that is between God and me. (for example ... i.e. just don't go there... They should catch on very quickly If they ask for "YOUR" address or birthdate ALWAYS have the BC handy (in your backpocket, even a photocopy) and refer to the address of the REGISTERED NAME, or the Birth date of the REGISTERED NAME...

Again you must be able to stand in your own knowledge... the EXACT same way if I tried to force you to acknowledge that you were really your business. YOU MUST NOT BLINK. YOU shouldn't have to hem and haw... that means your clearly don't understand... The only way to do this with success is having absolute and complete knowledge and understanding then it is dead simple and so easy to laugh in their face and give all the right answers... When they know you absolutely know they back away...
95% of the time I see people get messed up because they don't know all the nuances of how to speak in such a manner that it is crystal clear That you and the REGISTERED NAME are separate entities and that YOU ARE IN NO WAY CLAIMING OWNERSHIP to anything except the Birth Certificate.

the end (for this session... ) hope this answers your questions... next I might put out the list of 20 court references, but it's relevance might go over people's heads without the proper context...

Peace to all that would gain insight and understanding from this...

Links for my own reference:

Previous:
Natural Law Trumps Maritime Law Montana Courtroom
MARTHA'S VINEYARD (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65795-Nautural-law-Trumps-Maritime-Law-Montana-Courtroom&p=779413&viewfull=1#post779413)

Following:
Alert: Sheriffs Move To Arrest Convicted Vatican Church Leaders Bergoglio, Pachon, Welby:
ANOTHER "NUT SHELL" ON THE BC CESTUI QUE TRUST (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73247-Alert-Sheriffs-Move-To-Arrest-Convicted-Vatican-Church-Leaders-Bergoglio-Pachon-Welby&p=858228&viewfull=1#post858228)

sigma6

9th May 2014, 01:39

NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kids-talk-police/

“When they put the handcuffs on I thought, `Wait a minute, this has got to be a joke,’” recalled Latoya Harris, describing the arrest of her 9-year-old daughter last May. “The look on my daughter’s face went from humiliation and fear, to a look of sheer panic.”

At the time, the girl was wearing a bathing suit and a towel, still damp from running through a neighborhood sprinkler. She was taken away in handcuffs by officers David McCarthy and Matthew Huspek, fingerprinted, photographed, but never charged with a crime. She was held at police headquarters for an hour before her frantic mother — who didn’t have a car — could retrieve the girl from her captors.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kids-talk-police/#gGTJW2bYpCETaRbQ.99

sigma6

10th May 2014, 06:09

I hope this information is ringing some bells for someone out there.... I'm all for Flight 370, and all manner of conspiracy, as my own Flight 370 thread would show... even the conspiracy of people who might try to alter your threads without notice :rolleyes: That said. There are things that you can do in your immediate life that could change your life starting right now... Like understanding how "Special Appearance" is evidence of hidden trust interpretation...

If you understood what "Special Appearance" is making reference to. Which the above posts should begin to give you a clearer sense. It should incentive you, ie. give you motivation to realize that trust can never really be expressed or talked about openly in a "lower court" (of statutory jurisdiction, ie. Corporate Policy) Because for the lack of a better word that venue is considered public. And Trust law and equity delves with Private trust issues. The Judges are literally taught to behave as if they are "blind" to it. They are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You must find a way to invoke a court of equity in order to "exercise your God given rights" (as opposed to the "rights" of the Person.)

This is a subtle point, but somehow, somewhere there is a "Court" that does recognize some concept of God and your right to acknowledge him as your "Creator", i.e. his property (AND ALL THE LAWFUL IMPLICATIONS OF JURISDICTION THAT MUST FOLLOW.) Thus why we have "God given" rights in the first place. This isn't about religion, it's about philosophy. The foundation of things like logic before you get to LAW, What LAW is based on. Maxim over ride LAWS and especially CORPORATE POLICIES (i.e. statutory laws)

Anyways, in application the whole point is YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO TO A PROBATE COURT physically "in person" unless you want to be construed to be taking on the liabilities of a Corporate Sole Registered Organization (your birth certificate evidences) A property that you don't have legal title to. And even Karen Hudes can't prove and would tell you in a heart beat, that you don't have legal title to that "property". Don't be a lemming. That's why we are all here on Avalon isn't it????????? NO LEGAL TITLE, means NO LIABILITY... but you must access and operate this according to TRUST! (thats how it is protected from abuse and kept for the use of the elite.)

Anyhow if you Understand What "Special Appearance" is doing, you will see it fits perfectly with my interpretation of accepting that you are a beneficiary (in the private, very IMPORTANT) and that your only "duty" is to not step into anything else... ie. The Fiduciary Trustee MUST Settle the MATTER. Find out how to direct it to the right party. Start by understanding YOU are in the WRONG court!! (It's really just a for profit Corporate Arbitration Board owned by the POLICE and the JUDGES!!!) That operates according to Statutes. Talk about a Club and You ain't IN IT!....

"...in the evolution of uses and trusts was the adaptation of the concept of equitable (beneficial) interest for much more elaborate purposes . Originally the use or trust related only to land. All that was required to create an enforceable right for the beneficiary in equity was that the "land" be conveyed unto and to the use of the trustee in fee simple, in trust for the cestui que trust. The trustee’s role in this situation was straightforward: to hold the fee simple (legal title) to the land, to turn over the profits to the cestui que trust... to protect or recover the "land".
When one considers the simplicity of this method of splitting legal title from beneficial enjoyment of property, it is not surprising that the cestui que trust, or beneficiary, came to be thought of as the real owner—or, as sometimes stated in modern terminology, the “beneficial owner”—of the property. However, the right of the beneficiary in equity was primarily a right against the trustee to enforce the terms of the trust. The transparency of the beneficiary’s right, and the property to which it led, is obvious in the transfer of "land" to a trustee in fee simple for the benefit of an identified beneficiary. It is from this simple structure that the concept of beneficial owner can most clearly be traced. The cestui que trust was considered the beneficial owner in equity. The trustee was considered the legal owner at common law." - Beneficial Ownership & Income Tax - Catherine Brown

So if you want to be a lawyer good luck, but I would rather let the party that is liable deal with it. Once "you step into it" (ie. outside of Special into General) You are meat on a hook. Ask yourself why there is such a thing in the first place? And why they are so particular to point out what is Special Appearance? And what is General Appearance in the first place? This is so important. Maybe Grip and others can chime in and vouch. If they are started to see "the game" here... :) Remember the whole thing is set up so that you step outside your rights, now you're on your own, Your LAWYER is NOT representing you in a FIDUCIARY TRUSTEE capacity and will RUN AWAY at the mere suggestion, especially if you are holding a BC in your hand while you demand this... LOLOL... The "proof and evidence is everywhere...

20 Court Cases on the Magical Mythical Concept of
Special Appearance that many detractors claim doesn't exist...

1. If a defendant by his appearance insists only upon objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person and confines his appearance for that purpose only, he has made a “special appearance,” but if he raises any other question, or asks any relief which can only be granted upon hypothesis that court had jurisdiction of his person, he has made a “general appearance.” Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Harrah, 248 P.2d 814, 815

2. While a special appearance may be made to attack court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s person, joining therewith of attack on plaintiff’s affidavit renders appearance a “general appearance” waiving all objections to such jurisdiction. Sowl v. Union Pac. R.Co., 72 F.Supp. 542, 543

3. A defendant, who files an answer to the merits or in any manner attacks plaintiff’s case, thereby, makes a “general appearance,” and gives the court full jurisdiction over the person of such defendant. Jefferson Park Realty Corp. v. Kelley Glover & Vale, 12 N.E.2d 977, 979

4. A voluntary appearance whereby a defendant obtains an extension of time in which to plead is a “general appearance.” Youngblood v. Bright, 91 S.E.2d 559, 561

5. A special appearance by defendant for purpose of filing a motion to dismiss restraining order and bill to enjoin collection of judgment did not constitute a “general appearance.” McFarlane v. McFarlane, 293 N.W. 895, 897

6. If an appearance be for purpose of objecting to jurisdiction of court and is confined solely to such question, appearance is “special,” but any action of defendant, except to object to jurisdiction which recognizes the action as in court, will amount to a “general appearance.” Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 192 P.2d 307, 308

7. A “general appearance” may be entered by making a motion, by filing an answer, and in other ways. Welter v. Bowman Dairy Co., 47 N.E.2d 739, 744

8. Where defendant filed an answer, it made a “general appearance,” and thus conferred jurisdiction of the court over itself from the date of the appearance. Hart v. Rigler, 295 N.W. 308, 310

9. A general demurrer, filed without protestation is a “general appearance.” Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 59 S.E. 468, 469

10. An appearance made only for the purpose of moving to dismiss an action on one of the grounds specified in section of Code of Civil Procedures is made only on the hypothesis that the party is not properly before the court and is a “special appearance.” Frohman v. Bonelli, 204 P.2d 890, 893

11. A party who appears for the purpose of applying to have proceedings set aside for want of jurisdiction waives nothing by such appearance. McCaslin v. Camp, 26 Mich. 390, 391

12. A party’s appearance with a statement that he appeared “specially” is a “special appearance,” though no objection to the jurisdiction was specified. Marr v. Cook, 111 N.W. 116, 117

13. A “special appearance” is an appearance for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, to the proof, or to some other specific matter, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court as to any other matter. National Furnace Co. v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 18 F. 863, 864

14. A “special appearance” must be made for purpose of urging jurisdictional objections only and must be confined to a denial of jurisdiction. Blake v. Union Ins. Exchange, 46 N.E.2d 141, 142

15. An appearance for any purpose other than questioning the jurisdiction of the court is “general” and not “special” notwithstanding that the appearance is accompanied by the claim that the appearance is only special. The Ucayali, 47 F.Supp. 203, 206

16. A demand for a copy of the complaint constitutes neither a “general appearance” nor a “special appearance.” Lisle v. Palmer, 29 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976

17. Party desiring to challenge jurisdiction over his person waives “special appearance” and enters “general appearance,” by calling into action powers of court over subject-matter of controversy. Application of Goorich, 68 P.2d 597

18. The appearance of an attorney for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the action for irregularities in the proceedings is a “special appearance,” and the right to dismiss may be insisted on. Woodard v. Tri-State Milling Co., 55 S.E. 70, 71

19. An appearance is “special” when its sole purpose is to question court’s jurisdiction. Behr v. Duling, 260 N.W. 281

20. Appearance for sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction over person is “special appearance.” Robinson v. Glover, 244 N.W. 322, 323 —

sigma6

11th May 2014, 03:21

Texas officer fatally shoots 93-year-old woman
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/10/us/texas-fatal-shooting-officer-fired/

I feel so sorry for the police officer... :'( It must have been so scary for him... to see a 90 year old lady shoot bullets into the ground.... I hope he is seeking therapy for the 'trauma' he must have experienced... I wonder if his life flashed before his eyes...

But at least we know our man in uniform is safe and sound and survived another day protecting us for all the evil bad guys... out there...
(ie. 90 year old black ladies... )

Seriously we can't blame him... he was just doing his job... (killing someone's grandmother...)
I wonder if he did it according to the rules of fairness? and proper procedure?
After all that is the most important thing you know! :rolleyes:

sigma6

11th May 2014, 18:48

Alison Redford's extra security demands cost over $465K,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alison-redford-s-extra-security-demands-cost-over-465k-documents-show-1.2638858

Increased security demands for former premier Alison Redford forced the province to hire the Calgary Police Service at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That's almost half a million dollars PER YEAR for ONE PERSON. Tell me this doesn't sound like a crime syndicate to you.

I would suggest this might be another reason why the Criminal Cabal System can't function indefinitely, and why deception is it's most important tool.
Because if people were awake they wouldn't be able to AFFORD to keep themselves alive with a planet of 7 billion people wanting to HANG THEM. This is how much it costs when the majority are ASLEEP. :) Imagine the price tag if we were ALL AWAKE...

gripreaper

11th May 2014, 19:23

Sigma, post #23 very well done, required reading for everyone.

Just a little history and background to add. When the Dept Of Commerce finally gets your birth bond, it is a negotiable instrument under the UCC. If we use just basic math on what it is worth, you divide the GDP of 14 trillion a year in the US, by 300 million souls and you get around 42,000 a year per soul. Multiply that by 40 years of production, and you are worth about 1.2 million dollars. Some claim it is much higher than that. BUT, this bond is NOT a Treasury account! It is a "line of credit" which the owners, the government, can now draw upon. Everything in commerce is debits and credits on a balance sheet.

They must create a nexus between the real man and the fiction in order to draw upon this line of credit. For example, if you are "charged" with an infraction, a civil claim, or even a criminal charge, a negotiable instrument is created which draws on this line of credit. This happens just based on the charge, and that bond, that negotiable instrument, is just like cash and is deposited in the account of the municipality levying the charge.

When you go to court, since you are lost at sea, presumed dead, you the vessel being abandoned by your parents, the trustee MUST administer the estate under probate. This renders you mute, incompetent and a ward of the state. By entering the courtroom, you are entering as an imposter and thus nothing you say can or will be heard. 95% of all cases rule in favor of the government or municipality. Why wouldn't they? This is no accident. They are the trustee. The other five percent are those which remain in the private by special appearance, invoke the trust, or otherwise cause the municipality too much cost in adjudication to make it worth their while.

So, those who claim to be public servants are in fact private contractors and agents collecting free money laying around everywhere in these lines of credit, which is so easy to access and draw upon, they have taken to draconian measures in order to extract the most they can out of these lines of credit. It has nothing to do with the infraction, or justice. Get that straight. They are highly paid mercenaries of extraction, nothing more, nothing less.

sigma6

11th May 2014, 21:25

Yep that is pretty much the idea Grip! fair elucidation! It is important, even if we don't have the EXACT DETAILS (you'd have to be a Securities and Bond specialist, Lawyer, etc) Yes it's not a literal bank account with your name on it with millions of dollars in it that you are going to get a credit card to (if only life were that simple LOL) And not to say that there are people VERY CLOSE to that set up... (how I don't know exactly...) BUT it's about accrual accounting ...as Winston has always maintained. So this principle supports the concept of a "PREPAID account".

And since it is very obvious in our Criminal Code Definition, that the certificate that we were issued, which "entitles" us to be "recognized" (make contract) in the public as the NAME on the birth Certificate (Vital Statistics Act I think) is also defined as "include Her Majesty and an organization" that's like YOU, the "Corpus of the "registered organization" and Her Majesty (another corporation) Joint access.

Again I don't know that it is again EXACTLY as you have described, but your numbers are very interesting, they figure out nicely. I would guess that isn't far off. Also there is double ledger accounting going on. Which adds a wild card into the whole interpretation. As I progress this picture will eventually become clearer, but the MAJOR principle is that SOME KIND of bonds and securities are created and they are tied back to the NAME which is some kind of account that they are operating in trust which ties to us as we use it, and also represents our "energy" (for short) WE ARE THE CURRENCY! A friend said that he once saw the backroom of an insurance company across the street from a courthouse where they accepted security instruments...

They are the OWNERS of the "Paper" But don't be confused. WE ARE the SOURCE of the "energy" which is translated into some kind of monetary value, which gives that paper value. THUS WE ARE THE CREDITORS. Black's law Settlor definition. One who furnishes the consideration for the creation of a trust, though in form the trust is created by another. Not that we want to go back to even being Settlor. Or even Beneficiary. There are two beneficiaries in my model, (One is the registered organization "Person" is all I will say for now.)

Like the simplified metaphor, we are both CREDITORS and "employees" of the "companies" And besides what I am currently looking at is clearly stating we DON'T WANT TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP to any of that account in ANY EVENT necessarily, (although again, just to cover my bases there have been stories of people "cashing out"... but imo they severely short changed themselves compared to what they could have had, had they potentially risen to the next level of understanding, which might have to do with managing our own energy through this system. i.e. foundations, charitable works, public projects, etc. All this is possible, too.

But were we to claim these "accounts", we would be taking on the debt obligations, and shooting ourselves in the head. Which is why they rigorously defend against it in the first place, not to mention, the de son tort interpretation in the 2nd. i.e. if you can't defend yourself against this attack, then you shouldn't be trying to be a trustee... haha!! 0

At the very, very least everyone should learn how to present instruments, the BC and authorize settlement with the claimant.

sigma6

12th May 2014, 06:38

Who understands what this guy is doing? You can just repeat it, but it is a lot better, if you understood what he is doing, it is very specific.

Question: If everything is an offer to contract, do you have to accept it?...
Why would saying "NO THANK YOU" work otherwise? and repeatedly?

People you have to use your logic to INFER what is going on...
because it IS GOING ON... They ARE LETTING HIM GO ON HIS WAY.

And don't tell me it's just because they are being nice... or chickening out!

Are you a citizen? Are you a citizen? Are you a citizen? Are you a citizen?

Being a citizen is to be a slave, an employee, to give up your rights.
If you think otherwise, you've been lied to...
6_3dDNPwJTU

gripreaper

14th May 2014, 03:58

They are the OWNERS of the "Paper" But don't be confused. WE ARE the SOURCE of the "energy" .

And this is an important concept, that we view the "trust" from the energetic viewpoint, because the original "energetic curse" of the Papal Bull still governs our energy because we have not rebutted it and stood in our own energy.

While Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, the first Testamentary Trust through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate was not until Pope Nicholas V in 1455 through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit "For a perpetual remembrance."

This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as "crown land".

This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is born, depriving them of all their beneficial entitlements and rights on the land at birth.

So, we need to consciously recognize that these trusts are still in place and these trusts need to be rebutted, at least energetically. We need to say something like: "I no longer stand under (understand) the Papal Bull trusts and I release the energy of these trusts. I AM my own energy, I AM alive and the executor of my own estate, which is my body, my mind, and my soul"

You are "legally" a slave, just as your parents, your grandparents and great grandparents were slaves. You may be lucky enough to live in a pleasant plantation with other slaves, managed by overseer slaves such as police, judges, doctors and politicians where few examples of slave cruelty occur. Or you may be witnessing changes in the community plantation, which is part of a state slave plantation and
national slave plantation where there is more crime, more misery and death. The fact that you are a slave is unquestionable. The only unknown is whether you will permit your children and their children to also grow up as slaves.

Upon a new child being borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly convey the beneficial entitlements of the child as Beneficiary into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights as an owner of Real Property.

You are a slave because since 1933, when a child is borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate knowingly and willingly claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record.
This live birth record as a promissory note is converted into a slave bond sold to the private reserve bank of the estate and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate Cestui Que (Vie) Trust per child owned by the bank. Upon the promissory note reaching maturity and the bank being unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien
is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and itself monetized as currency issued in series against the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust.

You are a slave because since 1540 and the creation of the 1st Cestui Que Act, deriving its power from the Papal Bull of Roman Cult leader Pope Paul III of the same year, whenever a child is baptized and a Baptismal Certificate is issued by the state at birth or church, the parents have knowingly or unknowingly gifted, granted and conveyed the soul of the baby to a “3rd” Cestui Que Vie Trust owner by Roman Cult, who has held this valuable property in its vaults ever since, managed by the Temple Bar since 1540 and subsequent Bar Associations from the 19th Century representing the reconstituted “Galla” responsible as Grim Reapers for reaping the souls, or salvage also known as "salvation of souls".

Therefore under the UCC Slave Laws which most slave plantations of the world operate you can never own a house, even though they trick you into believing you do; you never really own a car, or boat or any other object; you only have the benefit of use. Indeed, you do not even own your own body, which is claimed to have been lawfully gifted by your parents at your birth on the commercial transaction
document we know as the live birth record, against which a CUSIP number is issued and sold by the central bank. Yes, the banks claim your flesh, the banks are indeed the modern slave owners, hiding these indisputable facts upon which their money system is built from the people.

You may not realize you are a slave under the slave laws of Uniform Commercial Codes (UCC), but may still erroneously believe you are slave with “more rights” as used to be afforded under “Common Law” until it was largely abolished back in 1933 without properly telling you. The word “common” comes from 14th Century Latin
communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com/comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". In other words, the real meaning of common as first formed because of the creation of the Roman Trust over the planet is the concept of
“voluntary servitude” or simply “voluntary enslavement".

Common Law is nothing more than the laws of “voluntary servitude” and the laws of “voluntary slavery” to the Roman Cult and the Venetian Slave masters. It is the job of the overseer slaves to convince you that you are not slaves, the common law still exists and has not been largely abolished and replaced with commercial law, to confuse you, to give you false hope. In return, they are rewarded as loyal slaves with bigger homes to use and more privileges than other slaves.

The reason why the overseer slaves such as judges, politicians, bankers, actors and media personalities are forced to lie and deny we are all slaves is because the slave system of voluntary servitude or “common law” was not the first global slave system, but merely its evolution. Before the emergence of Common Law, we were all
subject to being considered mere animals or things under Canon Law of the Roman Cult, also known as the Law of the See, or Admiralty Law.

Under Admiralty Law, you are either a slave of the ship of state, or merely cargo for lawful salvage. Thus in 1302 through Unam Sanctam, the Roman Cult unlawfully claimed through trust the ownership of all the planet and all living "things" as either slaves, or less than slaves with things administered through the Court of Rota.
This court, claimed as the Supreme Court of all Courts on the planet was initially abolished in the 16th Century only to be returned in 1908 under Pope Pius X as a purely spiritual ecclesiastical court of 12 "apostolic prothonotary" spirits, implying the twelve apostles. Since then, this new purely spiritual court has remained in constant "session", with the local courts using these powers to administer Divine Immortal Spirits expressed in Trust into Flesh Vessels as mere dead things .

Yet this is not the only form of slave law still in force today. Instead, the oldest, the most evil and based on false history are the slave laws of the Menasheh, also known as the Rabbi through the unholy document of hate first formed in 333 known as the Talmud of the Menasheh- the false Israelites. Through the Talmud of the false
Israelites, the whole planet is enslaved with the servants of the “chosen people” known as Caananites or K-nights (Knights) also known as the Scythians and then the rest as the goy/gyu and goyim– namely meaning the cattle, the dead lifeless corpses.

Ultimately, you are a slave because you remain profoundly influenced by your education and community at large and because many choose to continue to think and act like a slave, waiting for someone to help them, tell them what to do and be happy accepting bread crumbs of benefits when the system has reaped millions of
dollars of your energy.

A prison designed with no way out

Before this time, the system of global slavery and the treatment of the world as one large slave plantation was designed so there is no way out – as evidenced through the courts of the priests of Ba’al known as the judges of most legal systems in the world.

Even the most educated of men and women may remain tricked into believing that upon self representation they may claim their “common law rights” as a means of defense, only to find the judge lawfully rejects any and all claims. As the first law of the courts is the Uniform Commercial Codes of slavery as introduced in 1933, the
defendant is an employee of a corporation and therefore automatically assumes the liability of any injury. Unless they can pay, they may be sent to prison.

If such a trickster as the judge is challenged, they are permitted to escape to their chambers and call upon even greater power to return and magically establish a new court, without telling the defendant they have now entered Admiralty Court, or the laws of the See in accordance with Canon Law of the Roman Cult issued in 1983. Now the judge can impose grave penalties upon such an unresponsive defendant including contempt of court and other punitive prison sentences, with the defendant having no rights unless they know Canon Law concerning juridic persons and establishing standing above being called a “thing”.

Sadly, few people actually know the original meaning of "thing" as a judicial meeting, or assembly; a matter brought before a court of law; a legal process; a charge brought; or a suit or cause pleaded before a court. This meaning is then used with devastating effect through the heretical concept of Pius X from 1908 to claim the dead apostles sit in permanent and open session as the "twelve prothonotaries" of the Sacred Rota - as the highest Supreme Court on the planet. So when a man or woman receives a blue or yellow notice from a court issued through this unholy knowledge of Canon law, by the time they come to court, they are automatically a thing. When a man or woman seeks to defend themselves by seeking to speak before the judge, they automatically "consent" to being a thing. Thus a judge with knowledge of such trickery can silence any man or woman by "lawfully" threatening contempt of court if the"thing" does not stop making noise.

Indeed, it is the Roman Cult Canon Law of 1983 that establishes all courts are oratories, with judges holding ecclesiastical powers as “ordinaries” and their chambers as “chapels”. Thus the Bar Associations around the world have assisted judges in learning of their new powers in order to counteract those men and women who continue to wake up to their status as slaves, but demonstrating how to remain “in honor” with such perverse law and ensure such “terrorists” are sent to prison for long sentences as a warning to others.

If a judge so inclined to ensure an educated defendant is lawfully sent to prison or worse, he or she may run away for a third and final time to their chamber and invoke their most powerful standing as rabbi of a Talmud Court under the Talmudic Laws of the false Israelites of the House of the twelve tribes of Menasheh. Now, even a judge in a nation that is against the death penalty may choose to impose a “lawful” sentence against any goy/gyu or goyim who dares injure an Israelite – which is normally death. However, while judges in the United States and other nations have started to be trained in the re-imposition of Talmudic Law, it is at the hands of the false Menasheh, also known as the elite anti-semitic parasites also known as the Black Khazars and Venetian noble families.

Ultimately, it is enough for judges, clerks and members of the Bar to know that they hold our property in their Cestui Que Vie Trusts and that we are completely without effective rights, until we challenge their fraud.

Yet, even when you challenge their fraud, many deny and outright lie on the records to deny they hold trustee and executor powers with the case being a constructive trust and executor of the Cestui que Vie Trust from which powers are being drawn for the form of the court.

genevieve

14th May 2014, 16:07

Thinking, thinking, thinking.

Fascinating, gripreaper. Thanks VERY much.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

sigma6

19th May 2014, 09:52

Thanks grip, "fascinating" Do you really believe the Pope invented the first trust? Man! those guys really like to take a lot on themselves! don't they :p

Trust is a tool, a technology. It is the simple idea when one party asks another to hold something for them, the party holding it has a high level of responsibility and duty placed on them.
Society could not function without this simple concept. The fact that it could be used for evil purpose is like blaming guns and not robbers.
And I am of the belief it is not the gun, but whoever is pulling the trigger. Its about intention and not actions in and of themselves.

That said the question of registering human bodies and souls was put directly to Judith Hartman. regarding the registration. RGO registers EVENTS not PEOPLE, that was her direct quote. And what Edward M House was talking about... may have been the original intention. But I think even smarter people came along and found out you could have all the same control without the deception, lying and what you are ultimately describing (What House described was and would be treasonous.)

I define slavery according to the interpretation Winston revealed to me. Which I find fits perfectly with how the legal system clearly operates. According to the Roman concept. SLAVERY by definition, the way it was used specifically means VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. And was often practiced when one was indebted to another. Today, the entire system is based on VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (SLAVERY) So I agree with it is a system of ENSLAVEMENT today. But it is all "voluntary" according to a specific set of rules that haven't changed for centuries. The only problem is the public is not educated. Another point in Admiralty. It is assumed you are "educated" (see a problem here?...)

What may have happened during the dark ages I don't deny, Winston Shrout and many others delve into it at length. That isn't the mystery I speak of. LOL... I am talking about the "Private" aspect. That is hidden from the "public". Again this could only come about as a result of trust interpretation. (think fiduciary responsibility)

Anyhow, no satanic system of capturing human souls is required today. Just the fact that people are completely ignorant is enough. It's like a bunch of teenagers lording it over a bunch of 7 year olds because they know how to play monopoly and the kids can barely roll dice and count. That would be a more accurate 'metaphor' in my opinion. I don't really get into the Vatican stuff. Frank O'Collins has been at it for over 25 years and he is still struggling in the courts, still to come to a final ultimate solution. Although there are endless "fascinating" insights no doubt.

The fact is Judith Hartman is right. the BCs are certificates for registered corporations (NOT PEOPLE, BUT PERSONS)and accounts attached to them. If you find yourself being treated like a slave. It is because you have stepped into it... According to the definition of de son tort trustee and constructive trust. Or Resulting trust. It is our ignorance. Here in Canada the US, England that enslaves us. We are those 7 year olds that can barely throw dice and count, compared to those that are using this trust interpretation against us. And yet the potential is WE COULD HAVE the SUPERIOR control. The whole purpose of trust is to look after and protect the interest of beneficiaries.

I know about this "power", because I have accidentally stumbled upon it and directly experienced it. I did make a judge get up and leave the court and come back. Which he did... This was before Frank's explanation came on the scene, interestingly just a few months before in fact... I related it to Brian O'Collins a follower of Frank at the time and he did explain to me the interpretation. But the fact was because I "didn't know better" When they tried to come back in and "bluff me" from my position, I maintained the exact same "presumption" and said the exact same thing again. And this judge did back down, and there was a subtle shift from me to the prosecutor from that point forward. The long and short of it... This prosecutor, who turned out to be the senior prosecutor of the court who was also with an assistant prosecutor, ready to pull additional code at her command, eventually bowed and withdrew all charges!!!

The lucky part was that I had from my previous interaction with the "probate" judge had actually engaged her to such a degree, she literally, physically became speechless. So technically I had "won" (as much as you can "win" in that venue... i.e. she was so "confused" by my questioning approach. That she did give up, but not until she set another court appearance and to cover her own ineptness (at one point she physically spoke aloud the words "I don't know if I have jurisdiction over him..." (among many other precious nuggets!!) The adjournment was also a CJ on the docket which I later found out to mean "Change of Jurisdiction"

In retrospect I had inadvertently managed to get myself an audience in what I now believe to be a "higher court". So the "lucky" part was that I actually got a chance to try a process in the right court and it did work!!!! I was in the right place at the right time. And I was in the right frame of mind to sustain it. The stress was unbearable, the uncertainty excruciating. But on the weekend in between. Sam Kennedy had picked up on my email written the day of the first trial. And it became a huge sensation (LOL) But it put me back into focus and his analysis of my email gave me all the information I needed to "try it exactly the same again". I think this is the last thing they were expecting. I did it out of necessity (I had no choice) and also out of scientific curiosity. I would never have a chance again to test something so strictly.... And I can clearly tell you... what I said and did was EXACTLY the same in both courts. The ONLY variable that changed was the venue.

How many people have any clue what venue they are in? What court are they in? Or how do you create the court you want to operate in? Common Law? Admiralty? Probate? Equity? Quasi Criminal (statutory) Is it no wonder people try and fail when this isn't even understood?

Anyhow I experienced this... All I can say is I would NEVER have believed any of it if I had never directly experienced it. So I absolutely know this "control" exists. There is a hidden system there. There is no question in my mind. It's not about insanely complicated... My approach was retardedly simple. It's more about incredibly subtle... It's more of a riddle then a complex math problem. It's hidden in plain site. I took a position, and stuck to it, and it just so happened for once I was in the right court, in front of a real judge, and my position was unassailable. And I have tried to retrospect and restudy that experience over and over to "figure out" why the entire court "acquiesced" and backed off from attacking me. Why the Judge literally started going after the prosecutor almost "as if" it was on my behalf. I could never have jousted with the prosecutor the way he did. NEVER.

What you are describing above may have existed at one point. The system of control today is still here. But it is not in violation of our rights. It's in support of them. People just have no education in what rights are, I am not even pretending to know them all. I don't think I have ever met anyone either who can articulate them either. If you have any knowledge of rights you learned them from some place other than the public school system.

Hervé

19th May 2014, 11:53

Interesting dots to connect:

[...]

... They have studied humanity over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Its been their obsession. To find out how best to manipulate humanity. Because these entities have an underlying agenda, and that agenda is to depopulate this planet to the point where they can claim it for themselves....

[...]

When someone can state such as the above with, I assume, a very straight face and without even blinking... all I can conclude is that the cosmic psyop propaganda is working.

Because: since they were already in control, why wait for the earth's population to explode to over 7 billions when it was barely 2 billions a century or so ago?

So, that's not the real motive.

The only motive I can think of is that "bodies," human ones, have become a very real commodity that's suffering a catastrophic inflation for the self-proclaimed slaves owners.

Like, it seems, somebody lost control on who gets to incarnate and what for...

The interesting thing is: it's the likes of Kissinger's bosses who are responsible for that demographic explosion and its countering; first by instigating two World Wars and their respective baby-booms, then by designing "Agenda 21." That boils down to MONEY (wars and weapon sales) and MORE money (fat pharma with drugs and vaccines).

An alternate scenario could be that beings in need of "vessels"/"containers" to incarnate into, manipulated the self-proclaimed "controllers" into the production of "bodies" by getting them into making tons of $$ with wars...

With that, maybe it's possible to reduce the overall scheme to two factions at war:
1) needs bodies on the ground for invasion and control of human affairs

2) prevents the invading foreigners from getting more bodies on the ground
As was noticed by many, only Sci-Fi writers have the highest hits for fulfilled predictions...

PS: To link to Grip's post in: Re: Exopolitics Meets Exo-Commerce (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71581-Exopolitics-Meets-Exo-Commerce&p=836075&viewfull=1#post836075)

sigma6

20th May 2014, 01:46

Every court has access to a treasury account. And some people depending on when it was printed (each version can only "hide" so much and gives out hints. But I have seen written in fine print on the back of "my" BC (the one I was issued, that I have right of us of) Says' "For Treasury Use" Logic dictates there is a trust there. I don't have direct access to a treasury account. I don't think I know anyone who does either. But logic dictates, If the courts have treasury accounts as Winston has stated and the BC is designated "For Treasury Use". Given the context there has to be an application. And it goes without saying the IRS/CRA has this access. Trust, certificate, and trustees with account access. Is this as simple as I am suggesting. I am not suggesting it is simple, but it will be a lot less work then trying to study and operate 60 millions statutes.

There is so much that you are dumping in the above statement, but not enough context. No doubt the Romans created a system of control here. And btw Winston openly suggests and reccomnends we operate in Commerce. That it is his favourite. He may have a point. It gets back to the knowledge issue.

One thing I will take and even agree with. The concept that no one owns anything. It is understood we are all passing through here, regardless whether it is for 20 years or 120 years. And we come here with nothing, freely given what physical elements that make up our body requires, and leave the same way, and give even the body back. So I agree, you can't "own" But the word "own" is so horribly misunderstood, that I will NOT be using it for a long time, (until I study all the various variations of the different legal meanings, and it is over 20 plus to date I have encountered...) In a nutshell "owner" in my mind is associated with liability. And is supposed to "actually mean" "holding legal title". In some circles it IS understood that we are in fact beneficial owners. Another direct reference to trust interpretation. Who receives benefits? Beneficiaries... which implies trustees, which implies Trust... (a whole other trust arrangement btw...) i.e. It's everywhere. Then there is the problem of defining all the connotations and meaning of "title" In general it has to do with right to use. Control. So we have words that don't just have two definitions (ambiguous) but have MULTIPLE definitions. That vary with context. Not impossible to understand, but worthy of discussion and study. (which hardly no one is doing... :(

So I am purposely keeping things general, because if people don't get the basics, all the finer points are useless. If you go through 20 levels of math calculation, to solve an equation, but incorrectly applied the first two levels, the other 18 are a waste of time. That's how I approach it. Not to be vague, but to start simply... the oxen is slow but the earth is still.
or Dune... maybe for the first time that rather cryptic statement is starting to make a lot of sense to me... (and there had to be something to it...)
"The slow blade penetrates the shield."

re:Winston exo-commerce and RANT:
Will follow up on Winston exo-Commerce thing... I have one major pet peeve with his company right now. I wanted to complaint his customer service. They have a special offer. called a gratis. The idea is if you can't afford full price they offer a one time, pay what you can afford on a single topic DVD. Sounds pretty cool right! There's only one slight problem. If you try to take them up on it, they use it to target you as a "lower value client" and then try to deny you service and in some cases, refuse to fulfill the offer.

They majorly screwed up a webinar on me, when they took payment, then forgot to send me the link. Apparently they blamed me because I contacted them the next morning before the webinar to give them the 3 digit code to my card. From that point they NEVER took responsibility for NOT sending me the link. I then offer to help them settle it... by offering to purchase the DVD... at a discount using their gratis, which I thought would be a win win. They save face, I get what I wanted and we settled on an agreed price. The gratis just enabled them to discount the price. When we finally settled on an agreed price. Oddly They shut off all communication and refused to respond when or how I would be contacted... (They ended up taking over 5 months to produce the DVD!) After 5 months I contacted them, reminded them of our agreement 5 months prior, to which they claimed it was no longer valid because I didn't automatically give them the money! even though they refused to reply to my email enquiring on how they wanted to handle it.

I then had a friend contact them to intercede and their excuse to him was that I didn't deserve the gratis because I was acting like I was "entitled" (a different story every time...) and told him flat out as well that they would block any contact to Winston by him as well!! (huge dishonour in my mind!)

Then for the next several weeks, they sent provocative and ignorant emails to try and bait me to lower my standard to theirs... (at this stage they KNEW they had done wrong and were looking for a "justification" Unfortunately I wasn't taking the bait, but righteously and professionally kept pointing out their unacceptable behaviour... :D THEIR RESPONSE: Block all direct communication to Winston Shrout. I believe they are hiding the fact that they never delivered the link on time. And then targeted me as an undesirable customer for daring to use their gratis offer.... :o whoa did you get that using the gratis to target low income people who they can then treat like sh**... nice job girls... (too smart for their britches these two...)

Shout out: ... If anyone knows how to contact Winston directly, send him this post... I have a record of each of 35 correspondences, over a period of several months trying to settle this matter equitably and honourably. I was systematically jerked around (so desperate were they to provoke me...) I'm a patient guy... haha but this was beyond the pale. Plus a phone call to the webinar host who confirmed they must send the link manually (another thing they denied...) SHAME! for SHAME....

It's the same two girls that screen all incoming email and phone calls. And if you wish to complaint THEM (Misty and Melissa)... First, one pretends to be the "manager" of the other and basically tells you that the problem is with you... When you call them on it and want to talk to someone else. The thing is exposed!... Guess what! They tell you to your face they are blocking your information and NOT passing it up!!!!!???? (Who's acting like their entitled again?) And I won't buy anything else until this major dysfunction is corrected..

And yet I know they are seeking "customer service" feedback! as they will send out a questionnaire in exchange for a $5 discount... (that is hurting!... ) Gee, do you think my feedback might solve at least a couple of their problems?

Think about the implications of this... ??? The gross breach of trust involved :O ... If and when Winston finds out... he's gonna have a sh**.... What they are doing to his NAME ... Mocking everything and every principle he stands for... kinda like if someone used their control of threads and posts to leverage and co-erce other's free expression... on a "truth site" ...that makes for a fine cheese, but that isn't what truth is supposed to be in my books... :rolleyes:

gripreaper

20th May 2014, 02:20

I hesitate to call it a "Treasury Account" because most peoples understanding of an account is where you deposit funds for accumulation, in order to increase your assets on your balance sheet. It's a line of credit. It's fundamental context are credits and debits, because there are only two things (well three) going on in commerce.

When a note or a draft is generated, the requisite funds enter commerce through the Federal Reserve by federally chartered banks (and courts), and a liability is attached to them. This means, that these notes are debt based, have a usury (interest) attached to them, and a term of maturity, usually 30 years. When they enter commerce, the first user gets full value of their use, generally the bank (and courts), and each subsequent movement (transaction) deletes the relative value of the note, as well as the usury and the movement towards term which renders the note to zero. Winston Shrout calls this "setoff".

So, the note is constantly being attacked and diluted as it moves through commerce becoming less and less valuable, increasing the liability. There really is no difference in terminology between the words "interest" and "taxes" because they are synonymous when it comes to commerce. So when the bank says interest and the government says taxes, they mean the same thing. It's the carrying charges and the usury attached (the liability).

The challenge in a debt based system of liabilities, is someone has to assume the liability to increase the money supply, and the money supply needs to increase exponentially in order to keep the ponzi scheme going. As long as there is enough new debt to fund commerce, capital improvements, and servicing the usury, then the system appears to function, but there IS NEVER enough to do so because the exponential curve gets too steep.

The requirements of commerce to cannibalize natural resources and accelerate the rate of usury and debt service, makes it untenable and literally destroys the planet and becomes a cancer which feeds upon itself. When the point of saturation occurs, and the creation of new debt money slows down, this puts pressure on all existing debt instruments parked on the sidelines, and all asset classes. These are compelled and forced into service. This is called deflation.

So, the ponzi scheme expands till it can no longer sustain itself, and then it contracts until it runs out of inertia. WE are at the turning point where capital is being forced off the sidelines, asset classes are being attacked and devalued, and deflation is taking hold. It is my contention that it will probably take ten years for this to play out, barring any extreme outliers which may occur to accelerate this process.

sigma6

20th May 2014, 03:09

More to the point, all the bonds and stuff they create is for their own system, and really doesn't have anything to do with us... But the idea is that the BC represents a pledge of everything we have or will have or generate. It's not that they are stealing it. The idea was to follow the principle of the Vatican (the Romans) To create a system that recognizes, that in truth, in the highest philosophical and moral and legal truth. Man is not the owner of anything. It is all "God given" In the truest sense no one can claim absolute title to anything, except their own labour, skill, work, and even then if your life is a miracle, and God given. Who "owns" that. In a world of "Godlessness" and a world lacking any philosophical foundation. No deep thought, no profound mental contemplation these must be hard ideas to grasp. But they have a deep fundamental truth.

The idea of pledging everything to be held in trust... meant that everyone would also be free of liabilities associated with what they purchased with "money" from their own labour. Free of all taxes. Since anything they purchased would have already been paid for. In fact if you follow through Winston's logic which I have espoused several times here. If all "money" funds, credit whatever is being "stored" in banks (which is largely information records of commercial activity) And if all this money is representative of the "energy" of the living people and is being "loaned out" to be corporations and entrepreneurs. And products are being produced and distributed. In this sense all these things are the "fruits" of our own "money" "labour" "energy" .

Now I use the word "fruits" specifically because it is sort of a "bible" word. And it just also happens to be a "trust" word! ;) I am not going to be bringing into the scope of the discussion here... But the idea of Usufruct is a word that i am currently contemplating a lot these days... And a hint to it's etymology is the root "fruct" Where have we seen that? How about "frustose" i.e. a fruit sugar... fruct come from fruit! The metaphor of "fruit" is often used in law and trust (and the bible!) ... to associate by-products and the nature of relationships. Think fruit tree and fruit.

All the money that is created by human energy, labour is the tree in this case, and the products being created and distributed is the "fruit" of our labour....
The bankers and the government by this same analogy would therefore be nothing more then fruit pickers and handlers. Who have managed to take over the farmer's orchard and dictate how many baskets of fruit should be set aside for themselves. And now everyone (except them) is suffering.

How much more a simpler picture can it get.

THE BANKS, GOVERNMENT AND THE POLICE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR FRUIT PICKING FARM SERVANTS HELPING US GATHER AND DISTRIBUTE OUR HARVEST. THEY ARE NOW A BUNCH OF THUGS. DRUNK ON THE JUICE OF OUR FRUITS HOLDING A GUN TO OUR HEADS!! AND THEY ARE SO ADDICTED TO THEIR POWER AND SUGAR HIGH THEY WON'T STOP TILL THEY TAKE CONTROL OF EVERY "ORCHARD" ON THE PLANET!!!

We left them in the "backroom" far too long by themselves while they were counting the fruit and the money... And now they are coveting it as their own... By using the trust laws that were supposed to protect us, against us. Trust interpretation is the ONLY way we can get our power back... That's why it has been removed from the public school system in

the late 60's...

What you think is the "price" is really in fact a "tax" And in that other world of accounting it was already "paid for" So the idea of charging a price, although it serves a functional utility in controlling supply and demand and distribution in an economic sense it is also about accounting for technical reasons of equity but it is a tax being charged on people who wish to remain "outside" the system of trust. Who want to "claim ownership" to everything the "possess" . They want to go beyond just having it, and having the right to use it for themselves. They want to claim outright title (which is a fantasy, because they absolutely do not have legal title to it. This was clearly exemplified in the man who built his own trailer and was told by the Registrar where he registered it, that they could "never sieze and take it" because not being publicly manufacture there was no "legal title" created for it in the "public" (ie.. something going on that we are not privy to?" )

Anyhow.... I think it goes beyond credit. There is accounting being done for equity purposes (keeping accurate records) But it is all accrual accounting. In a word where everyone has pledged their life of energy. There would be nothing to "pay". Because you have already pledged your lifetime of labour.

Can you see why calling it "getting everything for free" is false... You have pledged all your work and labour to your "country" and in exchange (depending on logistics) but if and when you "acquire" a house, it is the product of the collective whole, the car would be the same. Again imagine the restaurant. You are one of the "owners" you want to eat a slice of pie. It's yours for the taking. Granted there would be "rules" ie. you might have to fill out a form. you might have to wash your hands first. or you might have to make a request through the kitchen... etc...

But the principle would be that you are not going to be charged. Is it "free"? of course not! You have invested, you work there as an employee, and in return what the business provides is available to you for your use and benefit, according to a system of fairness. Are there issues of trust involved of course. So I am saying it goes beyond even credit. It truly is "prepaid". It just isn't a literal "prepaid" account... It is more of a trust understanding... with accounting to keep a record (ie. warehouse record keeping, maintaining fairness, logistics, etc.)

We have the choice (and ever increasing luxury) of "claiming ownership" to everything or we can pledge our life and labour in exchange for the same things without being "taxed" (in fact this has already been done in the BC!) The only difference is really one of interpretation and understanding... And there would have to be a different system of accounting. "pricing" and distribution.

Given the number of people who are dying and starving in the world today. This would be a viable practical and more efficient system. I think it is already an understood concept in Africa. It's called ubuntu. You could apply the same level of government, science, technology and do this on a country wide scale and the productivity and returns would be phenomenal.

But are the people ready for this... (according to the "elites") We are not "spiritually developed" enough to conceptualize and be a part of this system. Apparently according to some factions, this is what the war is about... Who is right I wonder...

And the point is this system IS REAL. It is already HERE, and there ARE people USING it RIGHT NOW...

gripreaper

20th May 2014, 04:54

Now that this thread has made it into one of the "most viewed" in the last 30 days, a lesson in trusts, for those unfamiliar with how all commerce works in trusts (everything is essentially a trust) here is a good primer.

https://privatis.me/images/doc/trusts/Weiss.Consice.Trustee.Handbook.pdf

Sigma, since this thread has become so much more than about the drivers license, and could evolve into so much more, would you consider changing the thread title?

sigma6

20th May 2014, 05:51

Thanks, update: yes I have that one and it is a good primer. And simpler is definitely better. I'm open, but in the short term it might be confusing, seeing as everyone who is following is gonna lose track... and I don't know that it might "fix anything" (i.e if not broken, don't fix it) Also it is a catchy title, even if now off tangent... and I still have to connect this to my "interwoven series" of other "trust/lawful/legal interpretation" posts... i.e. if you are going to give me something, it has to be good ...lol... and we still might need to leave "Driver's License" in it... like

"What The Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License And A Treatise On Trust"...

LOL This reminds me of that Woody Allen movie title "Everything you wanted to know about sex but were too afraid to ask".... :)

sigma6

30th May 2014, 19:52

Santos carries the flag pole to our enemies home base... (a gaming metaphor not sure if it is still relevant...)
NYUGabNgKHM

Anyhow I invited a "conspiracy newb" to Avalon... we all know the argument... i.e. my total lack of awareness is proof of non-existence type logic...
here is my post in response... unfortunately he is not a member, but he will have the link, and he he will have his answer!! hahaha

I know how unfair this is but. If he legitimately wants to know... no can say I didn't deliver... ;) So without further ado everyone be sure to give a big welcome to my Big Mac eating friend.... :)

+WakeUpToTheNWO2:
+sigma six I am not certain about how the Toll roads operate where Santos is - but, where I am in Toronto, Canada - we have ONE TOLL ROAD - it was built with taxpayer money, but then SOLD to a private corporation (in order to recoup the taxpayer money upfront).
If I want to use that road - I MUST pay the toll - just the same as if I want to eat a BIG MAC I must pay McDonalds for that Big Mac.
To take or use something without PAYING for it is THEFT - plain and simple !!!
You can act ANGRY all you want about Corporations - it doesn't change the fact that Santos opperated with DISHONORABLE INTENTIONS - and now he is PAYING THE PRICE - LOL !!!

sigma six:
+WakeUpToTheNWO2: this might fill the "vacuum" I personally know people who have offset that "public liability" against that very road. In fact that would be child's play, and a simple example. The principle is universal, where Birth Certificates are issued, Fiat currency was issued, which happened Globally in 1933. HJR-192 specifically said public debt could be discharged "dollar for dollar" in recognition of the bankruptcy trust being set up... Think why the "government" (really a corporation de facto entity) would be "obligated" to do that???
(try and think now...)

You aren't getting anything for free, that's just idiot talk... like free energy. (which actually has similarity in principle) It is just a simplification for people who don't understand the underlying "physics" but ignorance is not proof of non-existence. And just because you can't explain the mechanics behind an observations, doesn't negate the existence of the observations. This is of course the logic of "legalists" (which everyone foolishly worships today (LOL) )

It based on existing almost infinite resources... (Human labour and creativity is the ULTIMATE source of wealth) To understand this you have to understand that you don't legally "own" anything. Legal ownership implies holding legal title. And you couldn't prove possession of legal title if your life depended on it. Receipts are actually bills of exchange. You are mistaking "legal ownership" for what is in deeper truth "interest" We have "interest" in things. Even the cops understand and in fact use this terminology all the time, if you cleaned your ears out.

(based on your response, and where you must be operating ..) this is represented in the financial world of securities and bonds via a birth right credit. A Birth Certificate. A Birth Certificate could NEVER be used to identify you in court (except by your own actions/ignorance)

What you don't understand is the human labour is the ultimate source of all wealth, all value, even machines are created with human labour, so their productions falls under that. Banks and Government are managers of other peoples' money. Managers are trustees. they are due compensation, but because the people are so ignorant. No one is at the helm, so their compensation has grown to the point where they have contracted to pay themselves more than the true "Masters of the House" the trustees were NEVER meant to have this control... In truth the system was designed that WE (the people) have all the control But it takes more than knowing how to buy a Big Mac understand this

It is clear to me you are completely ignorant of trust interpretation...
So for you and all the others that would reduce this down to your personal experience of buying a Big Mac... I will leave this link... that connects to a whole series of essays on the topic... and this is just the tip of the iceberg... My advice to people like you is keep paying for your Big Mac. That is your reality... For those who have the guts to step into the rabbit hole... Want to know what is being referred to as the Matrix? Have a taste of this...
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?70728-What-The-US-Government-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-The-Driver-s-License&p=832198&viewfull=1#post832198

sigma6

1st June 2014, 15:58

Sure enough, I was chewing out this guy through my Google hangouts posts that were alerting me to this guy's posts... since it was on the topic of "sovereignty" (although I am not literal "sovereign") I was offering links back to my Avalon posts. Anyhow, I had built up 3 or 4 choice responses to the local control freak on that site (you know how much I love those types :D ) I had built up a series of responses in to +WakeUpToTheNWO2: and was cleaning up (if I do say so myself... hehe) And sure enough once again... I went back today, actually looking forward to his next response... Guess what... I can't find +WakeUPTheNWO2: I can't find any of my responses to this loser.... it ALL DISAPPEARED...

What's interesting was that he pulled the troll card in his last response... and I let him have it... I flipped IT back on HIM so fast, that he couldn't tell whether he was coming or going... Damn I should have saved all the posts... who would of thought all the correspondence of me eviscerating this turd... would be ALL GONE... HE WAS SO LOSING THE Conversation... It's not at the YOUTUBE post, except a few of my original posts... And I can't see any of the conversation anymore in my Google Hangout VAPOURIZED, DISAPPEARED, ERASED in true 1984 fashion...

THAT TELLS ME THIS GUY WAS A REAL TROLL? HOW CAN AN ONGOING CORRESPONDENCE AND A GOOGLE NAME JUST DISAPPEAR?????????????

If I didn't post the previous post above, I'd have absolutely NO RECORD this event took place at all!!!!

WOW!!!

Still searching to see if I can find him... stay tuned...

update: I foun NWO2... he's a Santos Bonacci hater apparently, has a subscription of almost 6,000 funny thing, the entire conversation, he never contributed any information, just kept screaming, conspiracy theory is BS, so my last post I put the dictionary definition of conspiracy theory and told him he was weak minded. and that Main stream media must have made him into a weak minded fool to be afraid of the word conspiracy, when you read the post and read the definition. You would have to ask yourself. Yeah? Good question? Why are people afraid to admit to the existence of Conspiracies????...

con·spir·a·cy

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

I am trying to figure out how can a guy who goes by this name, attack "conspiracy theorists" ?????

WHERE DID MY GOOGLE HANGOUT CONVERSATION WITH HIM DISAPPEAR TOO!!!! ???? ... MY understanding is that it is all posting back to the original Youtube Site.... and I DON'T SEE IT DAMN! DAMN!!!!!!

If this is what I think it is.... it tells me something huge... The anti-thesis to the whole argument when someone screams Conspiracy is BS... is to read the dictionary definition and ask them what part they don't understand...

It just exposes my whole premise. That we ARE BEING CONDITIONED TO have averse, irrational reactions to certain words.... and one of those words is conspiracy... And I have had an entire Google Hangout correspondence from that YOUTUBE Video DISSAPEAR.

I was so TROUNCING that piece of crap too... DAMNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

Will keep an eye on my hangout.... maybe it has to have a response back from my friend before I can see it... But The Hangout is supposed to keep a record of all my transactions????? ....

sigma6

2nd June 2014, 00:04

OK Now I have my proof,

This time I copied and pasted my response to this guy posted it by going directly to the website and posting it directly. Pulled up the site again. To confirm the post was posted, and then I went back and the post has MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED... His huge smear, about conspiracy theorists is still there but mine has been removed not ONCE but TWICE.

So apparently anyone who quotes dictionary definitions and makes links to Camelot Project is going to get their posts REMOVED. Experimenting to see which part they are trying to suppress...

Here is the second post (not anywhere near the first post... hahah) that I am now essentially posting FOR A THIRD TIME TO YOUTUBE. I just posted it a third time at the very top as a new post... this is getting interesting!!!

This time I just posted it right at the top as a stand alone post at this link...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYUGabNgKHM

This post is being REMOVED by some third party... (this is the third posting! read it while it stays up...) It responds to what appears to be a "professional troll? Provides a dictionary definition of CONSPIRACY. and provides a link to essays of months of research.... (YOU DECIDE WHY IT IS BEING TAKEN DOWN...??????)

*+WakeUpToTheNWO2* What vacuous drivel... between your "Big Mac Economics" and your "expletive" posting buddy, you got ZERO?... The "mere fact"?... the "mere fact"?.... The 'mere fact' you would be afraid of a word like "CONSPIRACY" is evidence of weak mindedness. Obviously Main Stream Media has programmed your thinking to be afraid of a word. Come talk to you about what ? How to get a 50% discount on fries?

Why would someone who purports to be a truth seeker not be looking into conspiracies? You just exposed yourself as a total hypocrite! Here... close your eyes while I type out the definition of the word you have been brainwashed to fear...

CONSPIRACY:
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

How on earth do you get through a day living in a fantasy where you don't think conspiracies exist??? (LOLOL)... I just gave you direct reference to a series of articles I wrote over a period of several months. It is apparent you are clueless on trust interpretation. I even told you I personally know someone who is offsetting the cost of the very toll road you are obviously too ignorant to understand how to do yourself. And he is doing this NOW in REAL TIME! Wake up man and pull your head out of your derriere.

Not that I am trying to make you look like a complete fool... But what is becoming even more apparent is that YOU appear to act like a shill, who else but a shill would attack someone like Santos Bonacci? Or not even address a direct response to your OWN pathetic example (toll booth) ...that I know someone who does what you say is impossible? .... you never even addressed it... NOT EVEN A PEEP?

All my cards are on the table... they make reference to court precedence, Acts, direct experiences. Deal with it... Otherwise you may give the appearance of being *EXPOSED* Buddy...

I invite anyone to read these articles and the series of article linked to it... Thanks for the opportunity to give people an opportunity to see the difference between the manipulators and the REAL TRUTH SEEKERS...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?70728-What-The-US-Government-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-Know-About-The-Driver-s-License&p=832198&viewfull=1#post832198

jerry

2nd June 2014, 20:22

my second time seeing this one and is one to bookmark to watch again and again

sigma6

10th June 2014, 08:56

RobbRyder's most recent email... once again showing... Most people don't have a CLUE what is really going on in occult courts.
It's all about learning the occult interpretations. Or so it would appear. But I know some things that might make sense of this... ;) read on...

Bottom line what a lot of stupid people think is the law is not the law. It is a corporate policy administered by a commercial for profit corporation, and they are holding a contractual legal obligation over you based on your signature on documents you never even read...

The last exchange Ro heard from the judge during a foreclosure hearing last Friday… (in her words)

“when my husb finished ....he left and i was standing in front of judge...he was smiling ...i asked him ..''can i ask you a question ? sir'' he said ''sure''....i said '' can you tell me where is a court i can bring god into the courtroom ?''

his smile disappeared , face expression dramatically changed ...and he shouted'' leave right now

bailiff opened the gate, i left ...tried to find a seat...but bailiff pointed the door ...i left the courtroom”

That is so telling… all by itself it says worlds… but now.. lets look at it along side another story….

This involves a guy in Canada… a story I was told by “R.B.” in Montana.. I am sure a number of those that read this will know R.B. and get his verification..

R.B. told me this on the phone about a year ago - heck maybe more.. and I had hoped and waited for the author of the story to do a talkshoe, mp3.. whatever and share it in his own words.. as far as I know that has not happened..

What I am sure of.. is if R.B. says a guy in Canada told him the following story .. then he did.. and we should take away from it all that we can…

So here is the story.. paraphrased of course..

Guy in Canada is in court (no idea what court), it not being his first time at the Rodeo.. he had come up with a way to get the Judge to leave the courtroom.. had happened before… and was happening now..

This is not uncommon to happen.. but.. what he did next is I am sure you will agree.. uncommon. …

Judges leaves the courtroom… everybody else stays in place…. So our guy.. decides to go sit.. in the Judges Chair.. !! and does..

Apparently he is sitting in the chair.. no one tries to stop him, bailiff did not leave his post.. nothing.. eventually the “judge” peaks out from the back room.. and sees our guy sitting in her chair…

So..she steps out into the room, and orders the Bailiff to “arrest that Man” … the good junk yard dog that this bailiff is.. he was immediately in action.. headed to the bench… to take down our hero…

However… and for whatever reason … but certainly guided by the Holy Spirit.. our guy Stands up and says….

On and for the Record, I open this court in the name of the Lord….

And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom… , And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom… And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom…

Leaving our guy.. the last man standing.. so he waited a bit… seems R.B. said for quite sometime.. like 10 minutes or more.. but.. “They” never came back…

Now as much as I’d like to hear this from the guy it happened too.. I feel its my duty to share what I find relevant from a trustworthy source.. this isn’t the kind of story someone makes up…but that’s my opinion…

And the Moral… As-King you give an order, not ask permission..

What Ro did was wonderful.. she asked a question ..about bringing God in Court.. and she was told to Leave… (sort of like asking permission).

Or man in Canada… gave an order… in the name of the Lord… and “They” had to leave… and They did so without hesitation…

Between the 2 events … it appears “They” cannot and as much as possible will not allow God in the courtroom…

(a few weeks earlier when Ro was talking to an Attorney at the Federal District Court.. she asked the attorney about bringing God in the CourtRoom.. and the Attorney said.. No Way.. its not allowed… and ..some months ago now ..one of the “Clerks” for the 16th judicial circuit told her…. “The Judge is god” )..

Ok..so back to our man in Canada.. he leaves.. does not hear anymore about the matter… but soon after his younger Sister is stopped for no apparent reason, given a promise to appear.. and did…

The assistant prosecutor.. said to the Judge.. “perhaps if (Her Nare)…. Would apologies the Crown could drop the Charges.. “

Apparently she turned to the assistant.. and said… “I don’t bow to Satan or his minions”…… really shaking up the assistant prosecutor… ,

Anymore.. will have to come from the source…

That’s my story of the story.. and I’m stick’n to it..

And if “They” ..will not allow God in the Court Room… then .. where is the Courtroom that you can..

How hard is it to understand ..that the reason there was a Court of Chancery in the first place is .. that an English King issued a decree removing the Bishops involvement in the Hundreds (County) Court…

Or more simply -- established an Ecclesiastic Court for matters of Faith and Sin.. Crimes against the Law of God… and the Temporal Courts of the State are only to hear non contentious property exchanges..

If you don’t agree it’s a non contentious property exchange if you think some are conspiring to fraudulently claim your property .. then you need to take it to the Ecclesiastic Court… If ya don’t like the Catholic Church the see if your Church has a court… (any council is holding court).. so take them your petition.. point our color of law, being a crime against humanity.. now they are aware.. and either a witness or a defendant…

If you can help keep the lights on:
ashleyrytlewski@gmail.com (paypal)
and thank you in advance.

RobbRyder:
courtofrecord@aol.com
You can find my other research at:
http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com
On youtube at: Robbbryder ( 3 b's)

Gospel of Thomas:

11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass
away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days
when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the
light, what will you do? 0n the day when you were one, you became two. But
when you become two, what will you do?"

sigma6

23rd June 2014, 20:43

Why does the officer have the "right" This is no sloppy usage of words. This is accurate. Of course the "law" he is referring to is "statutory law" (an oxymoron really) which is aka "Corporate Policy". For all members who agreed to be party to it... (i.e. those who would rather accept "benefits and privileges" like the one this lady just got...) rather then exercise their "lawful" rights... and perhaps consider waiving the offer to contract (common law possibility) or even better accepting it for value and delivering it to the court with instruction for settlement with a copy of the BC (huh!!! yep that's what I said... that would be the trust interpretation...) And yes, there is a difference between "legal" "lawful" and "trust interpretation" ...overlap yes... but the differences are quite real. Too bad too, because she actually asked the right question... i.e. "that ticket isn't for me is it?..." How ironic... :(

RCMP & POLICE are now ticketing for windows rolled down, convertible tops down & doors unlocked
http://thercmp.com/post/89581063929/rcmp-police-are-now-ticketing-for-windows-rolled#.U6h9sPm-18E

iZw0zPjJgks

Great video, This will help illustrate the Trust Interpretation I have been trying to explain. This is why many can't understand what is going on. "Trust Interpretation" really is the hidden system, "hiding in plain sight"
.

Put simply, the cat is out of the bag... ALL property registered in public, means the "legal title" has passed to the REGISTRAR as holder. Think of all the property you have registered in the public; house, car, boat, license, etc (everything!) But it gets even better... The REGISTRAR (Province/State) is considered the legal title holder and you are considered the "equitable title holder" However depending on HOW you ACT. YOU could be CONSTRUED as the Legal Title holder as a form of "soft punishment" . That's right they are doing you a favour, in relation to your ignorance and "incompetence". Because in fact you have breached a trust by trying to claim "ownership", which they will construe to mean you are claiming "legal title" when there is NO WAY to prove that... (they KNOW, because they are "holding" it...duh...)

When you claim "ownership" and "appear" to be acting as legal title holder to property registered in the public. You are considered a "de son tort trustee"... http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/de-son-tort-trustee.html If you carefully read this definition, anyone who has been to court can start to get a picture of what is going on... And this definition makes a DIRECT REFERENCE to "Constructive Trust" (see post below...)

If you understand what Constructive Trust is, then you will now begin to actually understand what is going on. This is the REALITY being hidden from you. One of the CARDINAL characteristics of Trust as discovered by CW (Christian Walters) was that no party needs to know there IS a trust for a trust interpretation to EXIST! Think of the implications!!! (btw that's why you're considered "incompetent", amongst other things...

Also consider in legal dictionary parlance... "Constructive" is derived from the word "CONSTRUE" !!! (also discovered from the research of CW) Are you beginning to see the picture here!? Can you see what you have stepped into? when you go to court and try to "fight, argue" and how pointless it is, why it's a complete "dog and pony show" ... LOLOL...

There is a solution....but... first understand the literal "Prison of Words" that has entrapped your mind, which makes this inconceivable to most people. But there is much research, and direct personal experience of the truth of this... You must NOT claim ownership. This is VERY difficult for people to understand. You must stop using the word "owner, ownership" until you have completely studied the legal definition. (I don't use the word at all in a court, or in legal context, unless I am pointing out who the REAL "LEGAL OWNER" is... But NEVER in reference to myself. It is a dangerous trap.

Again none of this can make sense without "Trust Interpretation". But the key focus in this; understanding how registration splits title to property into legal and equitable title. The public courts and the whole system only "sees" "legal title" ("equitable title" is private) Constructive trust is a CONSTRUED trust, created in the court when you claim to be the NAME (haven't covered that yet) But in effect you are making yourself a de son tort trustee, forcing the court to "...immediately raise a constructive trust..." In a nutshell that means they just put the legal title (and thus the liability) on YOU! as a punishment for being so incompetent... and made the NAME the beneficiary...)

How is that possible? Here's (one of) the kickers... The trust that has been established when you registered all the property in the public was done in the Birth Certificate NAME. And what is the Birth Certificate? (are you sitting down...?) It's another registered property! That's right... But before you get all depressed the bottom line of this is that YOU are the SUPERIOR party in this whole deal (IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON!... I think I have to add this part, otherwise I think people are getting too depressed, and repress this information out of their consciousness, because of fear and confusion... LOL!!!)

But you have to understand the CONTEXT before you can understand the solution... and your ultimate power. This is a serious, serious thing to operate in trust... Ok, lets go back to the BC, The Criminal Code definition (in Canada, but this is a UN based document i.e. same all over the world in principle) Goes like this...

"Every one" "person" and "owner" and similar terms, include her Majesty [a Crown Corporation?] and an organization;

That's it. That's (a major part of) the secret. Mention that to a lawyer and they go blankety blank... and start to play stupid. Cat's out of the bag... i.e. what it is saying is "person" is a form of corporation. The BC is a registered organization. Is a property registered in the public. Almost like a recursive equation. That house, that car, that boat, was NOT ONLY registered in the public but it was registered in the NAME!!! Which is also a Sole Corporation and property itself registered in the public!! Now slow down and let that sink in... It requires contemplation. REAL contemplation. In fact it requires a diagram to sort out the dynamics of what is going on. (which I have made btw...) But for now... just know this... YOUR ONLY ROLE in all this is at ONE POINT (if you diagrammed this all out...)

That's right, it was all setup so that YOU (the physical living man/woman) are completely OUTSIDE of this whole setup, by definition... (i.e. the world of registered corporations and property in the public... i.e. why they call it a world of fiction (doesn't mean it's not real... that is the simpleton interpretation. It was created to create a world of accounting) And this is NOT to say it is GOOD or EVIL... It is what it is... A system. In terms of liability (if YOU UNDERSTAND) ...your sole connecting point is that YOU were issued the NAME (registered organization, Property, UPPER CASE NAME) Therefore you are the recipient. That certificate is proof, indisputable in ANY court, (but it must be properly presented, or filed into the case and called forth as evidence, which will in many instances, shut down the whole trial before it even starts!!!) Point is, it is PROOF, that YOU are the Equitable title holder (in private... remember they can only see the public in the public... They might need a NOTICE from the Private (for example... i.e. be careful in your application... O.o ) In fact, if you so much as say one wrong word, or show incompetence... Which is what you have been programmed to do your entire life (get it!?.... LOLOL...) Then they will throw you back into the constructive trust interpretation ... in a heart beat...

That's the game folks.... That's why you have NO CHOICE, if you really want to "Exercise your RIGHTS" you have to understand some basic fundamentals. Think in an entirely different way. Still have difficulty (I don't blame you...) But here is what is written on BC's in the UK. (same system of course...)

" 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 "

You see, if you look and check it out for yourself. In NO PLACE in the public does the Government ever TELL you that the Birth Certificate is YOUR IDENTITY... It is YOUR ACTION, and YOUR INTERPRETATION... I'll bet you have never noticed this your entire life. Consider how many other things you have missed as well... But is all there, "hidden in plain sight". It requires the exercise of logic to infer it, Thus how it is

Here is a quick update to another post... that I linked this post to... since it is such a "sparse topic" apparently some would try to "suppress" it in bizarre ways... I thought I would link them to give as much opportunity for context (much needed I believe....)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72033-Wanted-anyone-with-experience-knowledge-of-posting-a-Wikipedia-page&p=846924&viewfull=1#post846924

sigma6

24th June 2014, 00:59

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.

c. Constructive trusts
A constructive trust is a remedial 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.
[consistent with de sont tort trustee ?]

(Black’s Law 4th ed, Pg 1681)
Constructive Trust.
A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.

(i.e. you just got f***ed over by the court when they pull this one on you... which happens millions of times EVERY DAY, DAY IN and DAY OUT... )
-----------------------------------------------

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

[Question: If we are having trusteeship imposed on us via a "remedial device" Who do you think the "actual trustee" should have been or was originally?]

The BC could be used as evidence that they are committing a fraud, so long as you don't claim ownership. i.e. if they were to continue to force and coerce and manipulate you into it (which is what they are trained to do... Who are you! Are you the owner? I need to speak to the Owner! Is this YOUR car? etc etc,
The car is registered in the NAME. YOU are the holder of a certificate to THAT NAME. DIFFERENTIATE that in your mind (before you even consider how to apply it... and no it is more then just saying "I'm not the name! (in a whiny a** voice... LOL) even though it is the right idea... it won't cut it in court (it's not enough...)

The BC would be clear evidence of their "fraud". They are guilty of conversion. (I'm not 100% clear, but that is what I am told, still studying that one... :) But it makes sense...

Now the "what CAN you say part" (is trickier) you are the recipient, the holder of the certificate, "Which NAME are you referring to? ...the public registered NAME? or my private Christian NAME? Given to me by my mother? (...that's private and none of your business, btw... :p ) I like Winston Shrout's the best "I don't know my name because God hasn't revealed it to me yet" This is consistent with KJV scripture POW!!! Now that one takes understanding, but it is by far the most lethal, in my opinion for a number of reasons... (but again, I have to stress the "understanding" part... Don't be fakin' stuff you don't understand, or your liable to make yourself look like a FOOL... :rolleyes:

sigma6

9th July 2014, 08:04

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72616-Kate-of-Gaia-Babylon-Is-Fallen-Free-Yourself-of-the-CROWN&p=851636&viewfull=1#post851636

Another response to another post... Has to do with a big post that has been going around, btw alot of people don't, that post IS about Kate and (his/her) daughter!!
Anyhow some synchronicity.

Snowflower

9th July 2014, 08:15

Ok, so now what? Start using a different name?

sigma6

9th July 2014, 09:43

Perhaps try and stretching past more then one sentence posts... but funny you mention it, there are occasions where people use different names, it's perfectly legitimate and perfectly legal, and even has practical application in specific contexts, the only issue is avoiding anything considered fraudulent. I guess it's a "trust interpretation thing" Meaning, the intention of the use, is what dictates the determination of type of application. So the answer would have to be: "it depends, but I doubt it..." (it's one option of many)

I'd say the first thing to figure out in your own mind, in something that you could articulate to yourself and to others regarding "who you are" (how would you describe yourself... especially in relation to the certificate you were issued.) That changes everything. That has to be understood and expressed in a way that describes it in every way possible; legally, technically from a business contract point of view, trust interpretation point of view, what your own interpretation of it's implications mean to you.

Even Karen Hudes admits they don't see us in court, they see an account and a debtor taking on surety, liability, by their own actions, and therefore by their own consent. (i.e they judge peoples actions as well as their words, and create their presumptions, and try to fasten it upon you... unless you know exactly what is going on... actually KNOW... as opposed to just larking, or aping, or guessing, or repeating, only half understanding, etc... hope that helps ;)

I'm not 100% Pro Karen, she is way too slick... but she does give out little tidbits, she is hinting at it. A court of equity btw is a direct reference to trust interpretation. And THAT is what she said we are NOT getting (but she didn't say how to get it... ) She is just "talking" about it... she is speaking cryptically...

in one part he says sarcastically "...like we don't have ANY rights... she corrects him with response, we have to take our rights back... now that was cryptic, that avoided explaining how that all works, but it was 100% accurate... LOL...

World Banker Karen Hudes Reveals Secret US Constitution
eMSF8mCR6M0

snoop4truth

1st September 2017, 22:27

sigma6,

Below is my response to Eddie Craig's video which you praise in your comment above.

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec.
(Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

THE TRUTH:
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BACKGROUND:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver's license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ CLAUSE THREE (3) HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. Thus, FEDERAL law and STATE law GOVERN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (AND "OPPOSITE") LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments was to actually make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the FEDERAL government to regulate STATE legal subjects and vice versa. This division of powers (jurisdiction) is precisely why conflicts between FEDERAL laws and STATE laws are so extremely rare (because FEDERAL and STATE laws regulate ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (AND "OPPOSITE") LEGAL SUBJECTS FROM ONE ANOTHER). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because (under the tenth amendment) FEDERAL law regulates driving while engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE" and STATE law regulates driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE" (the exact "OPPOSITE" legal subject).

NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the forgoing BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

CONCLUSION:
As a result, FEDERAL driver’s license laws APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles "WHO ARE" engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. Conversely, STATE driver's license laws APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE "NOT" engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. Take your pick. The result is exactly the same either way. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you ARE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just conclusively proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY ("STATE driving, licensing and registration laws do not apply to you unless you are engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE."):

Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, and there is NOT, then under the Supremacy clause, the decision above would overrule that other decision.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law requires drivers of motor vehicles who "ARE" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses and STATE law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE “NOT” engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses. EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the officer who had previously arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [A FALSE CLAIM IDENTICAL TO WHAT EDDIE CRAIG FALSELY CLAIMS]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent [Translation: "The dangers of driving on public highways make regulation reasonable and necessary."]. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a town and other government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she 'HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF A [LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES THAT DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH.'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that he had a good faith belief he did not need a driver's license because he believed that, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case using an almost identical argument before. In discussing that earlier, almost identical case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license ... six times. After she refused to respond... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON [whether or not engaged in commerce] WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his amateur suit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The appellate court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims] BUT NOT 'TRAVELING'. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' [IN IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams [an amateur legal theorist] filed an amateur claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court convictions for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE and [for] displaying EXPIRED REGISTRATION PLATES. [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... , with three years of probation." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant appealed his conviction in the lower court. The appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL followed by supervised probation.... [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE." But, the court implicitly held that the absence of "commerce" was completely irrelevant because it affirmed the conviction of the lower court below. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Appellant [AND WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], Anthony Troy Williams, was indicted... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Appellant [Williams] was convicted by a jury and sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, Appellant... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims] AND [THAT] NO STATE CAN IMPOSE REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF TRAVEL ON THE HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS.'" But the court held otherwise and wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF [INTERSTATE] TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE.... . THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT MOTOR VEHICLE BE REGISTERED... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [INCLUDING THE PHONY "COMMERCE" ARGUMENT] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court several times [actually providing a long list of such dismissals]." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him, a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction in BOTH cases. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS and [claimed that] he was claiming diplomatic immunity. Guenther [the officer] testified that the ["Right To Travel" documents] ... contained a birth certificate and documents that stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [as if that would make any difference]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND [I]... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B.' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

"SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-...hwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/3391...by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of decisions which they use as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision to support this false claim. For example, they have come up with the following "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", LOOK ALIKE" RIGHTS:

1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

1. Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the right "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this court also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence again and again]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of Virginia anyway.

2. People v. Horton,
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006
Note: This is a CRIMINAL stop and search and seizure case, not a driver's license case. In this case, an officer stopped a car SOLELY because it contained young people. The officer found marijuana in the car and arrested the driver for possession. In holding the traffic stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to illegal stops and searches and seizures], unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of California anyway.

3. People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. Note: This is a CRIMINAL stop and search and seizure case, not a driver's license case. In this case, the police set up a roadblock to catch an armed robber fleeing the scene of the crime. The police stopped every single car on the road. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the roadblock was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case directly above which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to illegal stops and searches and seizures], unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of California anyway.

4. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). Note: This case is also a ROADBLOCK CASE, not a driver's license case. In this case, police set up roadblocks around a high crime area after dark and stopped every vehicle going into the high crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a legitimate reason for entering the high crime area, the police turned the driver and vehicle away. The court held that such a roadblock was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [to a particular area]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders the District Of Columbia anyway.

5. Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT OR LIBERTY... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The right of a citizen to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER... . So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of Idaho anyway.

6. Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...nc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a certain minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides for usual and customary purposes and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the fifth case above) which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". Two paragraphs later, the same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of the alleged "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside the borders of the State of Mississippi anyway.

The case below explains it well.

Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION AND CONTROL... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the CENTURY-OLD, SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE ABOVE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked). Regardless, because they conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a city commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The city commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham (in protest of racial injustice) twice attempted to apply for such a permit with the city and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject ordinance.

The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH. The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION [not case law] guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny the LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE (9) words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] license." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] license."

Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER! "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS IN SUBSTITUTE RULINGS WILL NOT WORK.

rgray222

2nd September 2017, 02:24

I don't know if my post here will be welcome or not... but I still wanted to put it here. I think it is very important for EVERYONE to see and KNOW how extremely aggressive, evil, lying and generally predatory our government and TPTB are. But, interestingly, fighting them simply adds energy to the fight.
I saw something that was an AH HA (!) for me. I saw that when you resist something, you add your energy to it and it grows even more. So... fight the government.... you add your own life force to the pattern in operation. Meanwhile, your life force is spent in the fight. All the revolutions, overthrows of past governments, and political fights have simply added more energy to the situation
Then ... finally I realized that I needed to stop the war. And in order to do this I needed to stop the war inside myself. I needed to withdraw my energy from resisting and from disapproval and... from all forms of hate and judgement. I needed to allow ... to allow everything and everyone to be as they are... and to love them and see them as perfect.

I have been diligently working away at this project for a large part of my life now. The result is a life that is really and truly amazing. My life is abundant, I am free of strife, I am filled with peace... and I am still going ever deeper into looking for any places within me where hate and resistance still reside.

Dawn, I found this message very insightful and it parallels much of what I have been attempting to accomplish for many years. Adding your energy or life force to something so negative only pulls the strength from your soul. Bearing witness and leading others to the truth (with no expectation) is the smart road to follow. That said, once a tipping point of witnesses has been reached, action will become necessary.

My AH HA moment was finally figuring out that my contribution was only adding fuel to the fire. It caused an inner resentment and anger which was difficult to deal with and at the end of the day only increased the energy of the problem I was railing against. Stepping out of the war has made my life healthier, abundant (in every sense of the word) happier and much more rewarding.

This would be an excellent topic for a new thread.

sigma6

15th October 2017, 17:34

When one studies equity in trust and understands the dynamic nature of usufruct... (the dynamic relationship between individual and State...) and also the back drop of hidden meaning in Biblical text regarding commercial transactions and ownership of property, jurisdiction under God, etc... it's not about going against the State... that was always set up as a trap to catch hard headed people... it's about learning enough of their 'language' which is truly 'foreign' to our every days lives (sorry but there is no number of television shows that will ever educate you on how the courts or cops operate... it's quite the contrary in fact... and intentionally so...) and consistent with the Roman saying "...Let he who would be deceived, be deceived..."

Simply put, the idea is to essentially let the 'Roman Civil System' which is what everyone is stuck in, whether they know or accept this or not (from their limited point of view...) which is a form of martial law governed by the Libor Code. That you must let this 'Power' know that you are not an enemy, nor intending to take up resistance or arms against it/them, and that you intend to live as a peaceful inhabitant... and willing to pay some tribute, in exchange, the occupying forces maintain protection of property and peaceful relations via rule of law... on top of all these systems was the creation of a corporate entity that was issued for our use as a form of indemnification if we chose to accept this offer... it involves abandoning all 'modern' notions of outright ownership (which according to Biblical philosophy (i.e. Western Christianity) is absolute nonsense anyway (because God owns everything out right, including your life even...) and focuses strictly on "right to use" (which by the way it what "property" really means to begin with... language, media, and lack of education just simply forgot this... I could get into "title" ...how it is used as the means of establishing "property" (right) and this is why understanding trust is so important, since it controls how titles are "moved"...

suffice it to say... as much as the Anglo/American Jesuit backed Vatican war machine freaks me out, I'd rather it be them (now that I understand their underlying modus operandi) then some purely "man ruling over other men" system, for the sake of a small elite group of men (i.e. no 'God' in the picture, thus no alternative jurisdiction, should someone choose to wish to live in peaceful co-existence or not...) i.e. like North Korea, as we all know, anyone there can be killed for any reason if Fat Man Lame Duc (sorry if I got the name wrong) wishes it or not... period, end of story... or even China and Russia, as "peaceful" as they seam to be... I believe they behave this way precisely as a response to the existence of the 'US' system, although Russia is now moving toward a Christian Orthodoxy based religious society and I am all for that for the above reasons, and there has been some kind of settlement between them and the Vatican... anyhow, sorry if this went too "big picture" but this is at the heart of what is going on...

i.e. you are fighting the public Roman Civil commercial, admiralty, jurisdiction, an outside occupying force ultimately, (US currency is a global currency, IRS and Federal Reserve and NOT US government agencies, etc, etc...) which is a form of civilized warfare when you fight against it... this is really or people who choose to be 'Godless' (i.e. give up the jurisdiction of their own consciousness, as a men and women created in the image of God, and therefore capable of manifesting his principles here on earth, etc...aka 'true' Christian principles...) and for the critics (I can hear it now...) the Vatican is a whole other kettle of fish, even though they play an important and critical role...) And it doesn't matter to me any longer whether Jesus was this or that, non-existent, etc... that is a whole other topic again... it's the PRINCICPLES that are sacrosanct... based on universal philosophy that has scientific rationality (if you look deep enough... why it's still 'universal')

There is another jurisdiction but you will never find it in the public, the Roman system is only obligated to maintain the covenant of Christ, not necessarily educate and spoon feed it to a world of incompetents... you have to find this yourself... you have to educate yourself... you have to exercise these very real rights yourself... in the same way (and principle) that you have to wash yourself and eat for yourself and poop for yourself... it's very private and very personal.. it's a philosophical decision you make, based on your choices (some people can't, won't or refuse to do these things, which is their right/plight, etc...) but if and when you do... in an educated and accurate and proper manner, the system is there and will be revealed... and it does serve you... because there is a trusts... and trusts never fail... and to me explains perfectly what I see going on locally, statewide, nationally and globally... stop mistaking the de-facto superficial cover for the foundation... we could go back to purely trust... but statutory couldn't exist without it... just like... what we call "material reality" can't exist without the non-material quantum foundation that it rests on... it's that fundamental in my mind...

or to put it it all in a nutshell when getting a "ticket"... you act like a creditor, seek immediate settlement of the matter, preferably even within 3 days, at least to set appt if you can't set up a private appt, present a cert copy of BC, that has notation noticing "acceptance for value" i.e. file into case or attach to account that has ticket, etc... and consider the matter settled...

of course if none of this makes sense... please don't try to "simulate" this by "going through the motions" you WILL be tested... in fact the whole system is testing you constantly... you either know it, or you don't... learning by trial and error isn't appreciated by the courts and can be very costly...

As people like Sean David Morton found, he was an extreme case that was pushing it to the limit and I think there was some fundamental errors in his interpretation... but he wasn't entirely wrong, in fact he was very close... nonetheless, it's a very serious thing to breach a trust on EITHER side...

Mike Gorman

16th October 2017, 01:03

I come from a family of law enforcement. My brothers are FEDs, my son is a FED and my other brother a chief of police, my dad was a state cop and my grandfather a game warden. I recall the disappointment when I went into something so mundane and boring as dental and the lecture of why becoming a cop was so much better blah blah blah. Looking at the situation through the eyes of this guy it makes me darn glad I went where I did.

However, with that said, and coming from a family of several active cops including cousins not mentioned by the way, I want to add some thoughts. I realize truth is rarely thanked in conspiracy and UFO forums and that is fine but seriously I've had about all my family watch this now and the general consensus is that this guys advice is serving only the attorney, the Alex Jones and His channel and other such places. These guys, Alex and this lawyer included, in my opinion, could care less about you. Its great for them if you confront the law and it gets them ratings and you get hammered with some trauma. Most of my family feel what this guy is recommending is just going to make confrontations unnecessary by blowing out of proportion some happenings the media focuses on purposely just to gain the same types of negative ratings. IF you get in a confrontation and its on camera it really helps them while tapping you out emotionally, physically and lets not forget financially. Most of these officers have no such interpretations as this guy either and no intentions of taking rights away by these questions. However, they do actively seek signs of deception, drugs, and alcohol among others and behaviors such as those recommended by this guy are the exact red flags they are trained to detect to make them suspect you when they otherwise may not!

Lastly, has anyone including this lawyer givin any thought or consideration to the poor people pulled over after one of the guys watching this video pulls this stuff? Talk about poking the bear! I am glad it only has six posts. At least that says something because I think this guy is giving bad advice personally. I don't see it as giving over my rights to cooperate with a law officer if I have nothing to hide at all. They won't find anything in my car illegal and I know that so to me this is needless sky is falling nonsense blown out of all proportion to profit one way or another at the expense of others. The media can at any time show you a very very small % of what is actually the 'world' lets not forget. One needlepoint segment in a small area of the US or even two or three does not constitute some threat. Texas has a high percentage of cop assaults tho so they have the issue and want to make it nation wide also which is not a fair assessment either. Again, my opinion. For the record and all!

Why do you include Alex Jones as being a fraudulent conspiracy monger? I have seen a lot of Alex's media work, and he never willingly promotes B.S, he might exaggerate a few things for dramatic effect; the establishment wants you to consider his work as illegitimate, because it makes people think critically about their society. I would not fall into the trap of being a 'General dismisser' of anything which challenges your safe, mainstream perspectives. Alex Jones does not promote the sovereign movement.

Most of the sovereign information is based on half truths, and plausible sounding legalese. They speak of 'Common Law' (this is a big one with them) Common Law is simply the law of precedent - it refers to cases where judgments have been handed down which challenge the established order. This is how laws get changed, 'precedent' is changed.
There was the birth certificate, and how this represented a stock market investment on you - this was incorrect, people who make their living by selling 'alternative' information and products which challenge the establishment just get rich off of folks who are rebels at heart.
These are the people I feel sorry for, the people who feel a general sense of outrage that their freedoms are repressed by society. The malcontents and natural rebels-they get sucked into these con men movements which kind of sound plausible-the people involved actually believe what they are teaching, but most of this sovereign movement is InValid, it is technically incorrect, it is flim flam!
Mary Elizabeth Croft was at the heart of much of the sovereign movement This is her PDF (http://thecrowhouse.com/Documents/mary-book.pdf) which started off a lot of this alternative fight-it is interesting!

snoop4truth

1st October 2018, 21:25

Dear Sigma6,

This is more that you need to know about Eddie Craig whose video you praise above.

EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

1). http://freeinfreedom.com/2013/04/15/former-deputy-sheriff-reveals-secrets-police-dont-want-you-to-know/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

2).http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/08/26/ff34/ (in the FIRST SENTENCE of this fraudulent article).

3. https://www.lawfulpath.com/index.php?p=Reading-Room&i=trafficStopProcedure.php (in the SECOND SECTION containing the BLUE "Info Wars Nightly News" link).

4). http://randeastwood.com/pulled-over-what-to-do-not-to-do-to-protect-yourself-your-rights/ (in the SECOND PARAGRAPH).

5). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi0WHduZI&list=PLBT7ziNMNV8s-tc6C0UUTSbytYpXY8X6A (See the TITLE).

6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004 (See the DESCRIPTION section BELOW THE TITLE.).

7). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZ14PFb7AQ (click on "SHOW MORE" for "Eddie Craig's background")

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, FALSELY claims to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" (a "former cop" and a "former law enforcement officer") and an "EXPERT" in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig FALSELY claims that he was a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF", he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.

Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about himself and his background in order to deceptively "TRICK" the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.

THE TRUTH:
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously "FIRED" ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!

That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!
It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for which he claims he "left the Air Force". HE IS A CHARLATAN AND A FRAUD!

See this case. Muniz v. Davis, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4860473033812235072&q=%22Eddie+Craig%22+muniz&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Muniz [a litigant in a traffic-related case who Eddie Craig duped] also asks the Court to consider the [written] expert statement of Eddie Craig, attached as an exhibit to Muniz's First Amended Complaint... . In the statement, Craig opines that the actions of the law enforcement officers in this case were unlawful [as if Eddie Craig would know]. ALTHOUGH MUNIZ CLAIMS THAT CRAIG IS A FORMER SHERIFF'S DEPUTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT [TO THIS EFFECT OR] OF CRAIG'S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT WITNESS]. Simply put, THE COURT HAS NO BASIS TO CREDIT CRAIG'S ASSERTIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT" WITNESS]... . " (in the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 35% through the text). Note that the reason that there was "no evidence before the court" that Eddie Craig was a former Sheriff Deputy is that HE IS WAS NOT A DEPUTY SHERIFF, much less an "EXPERT WITNESS" in matters of the law.

ANALYSIS:
Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" and "DEPUTY SHERIFF".).

OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
EDDIE CRAIG HAS LOST ALL OF HIS OWN CASES! REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".

NOTE:
For more "Eddie Craig Hoaxes", see the comment below entitled, Eddie Craig & The "No Commerce, No Driver's License Needed Hoax" (SEE COMMENT DIRECTLY BELOW). It contains links to the REAL law on that subject. For more on driver's license law, see the comment entitled, the "Right To Travel Hoax" & The "No Driver's License Required Hoax" (SEE COMMENT EVEN FARTHER DOWN BELOW). It also contains links to the REAL law on that subject.

DISCLAIMER: No person at InfoWars, its ownership, management or staff knew the forgoing FACTS about Eddie Craig. They took Eddie Craig FOR HIS WORD that he was what he claimed to be. Inforwars is NOT responsible for Eddie Craig's false claims ABOUT HIMSELF or his false claims ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

CONCLUSION:
Sadly, Eddie Craig is just another poser, pretender and impostor who INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTS the law and the legal system in order to incite hatred and violence against the servants that "We the People" ELECT to enforce our laws which are made by the servants that "We the People" ELECT to make our laws.

HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST EDDIE CRAIG FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
ADVISING people what to say or do in the presence of law enforcement officers, judges and/or prosecutors (offering or providing "SCRIPTS", "TEMPLATES", oral "ADVICE") may constitute the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW in Texas. To file a COMPLAINT against Eddie Craig in Texas in connection with this illegal behavior, click here. http://www.txuplc.org/.

PAY FOR A EDDIE CRAIG SEMINAR? YOU GET AT LEAST THREE TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK!

If you PAID to attend ANY SEMINAR involving Eddie Craig IN RELIANCE of his fraudulent claims that: 1). He is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"; OR THAT 2). He knows the law; OR THAT 3). He (rather than an attorney) has EVER "won" ANY case, in ANY court, at ANY time, THEN YOU MAY RECOVER THREE (3) TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK, PLUS ATTORNEY FEES, PLUS OTHER LEGAL COSTS UNDER FEDERAL RICO, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER STATE LAW!

NOTE: Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by using the "means" of "INTERSTATE commerce" (internet, email, telephone, U.S. Mail, etc.). Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by making the fraudulent representations described above. This fraudulent conduct gives rise to FEDERAL jurisdiction, to claims under FEDERAL RICO and also gives rise to STATE law claims for fraud and misrepresentation including claims for PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

THE LAW ON FRAUDULENT SEMINARS UNDER FEDERAL RICO:

1). Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17967775573114200296&q=neibel+transworld+assurance&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[THE DEFENDANT HERE] PREYED ON... AMERICANS WITH LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN THE ... LEGAL SYSTEM [exactly like Eddie Craig does]. AT HIS SEMINARS, ...[the Defendant here] PROMISED those in attendance... [he] would PROVIDE... [them with SCRIPTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENT] PREPARATION AND ADVICE... [and] LEGAL PROTECTION...[just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "[The Defendant here described his METHODS and his DOCUMENTS as] 'TRIED AND TRUE' [just like Eddie Craig describes his own METHODS and his own SCRIPTS and DOCUMENTS to his own SEMINAR customers]" Translation: The Defendant here, like Eddie Craig, LIED to his own customers about the BENEFITS that his SEMINAR customers would receive from attending his SEMINARS, such as "WINNING their own traffic cases in court", etc. ; "...[T]he jury [here] found...[the Defendant here] LIABLE FOR VIOLATING [FEDERAL RICO] section 1962(d), AWARDING [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $259,366 in actual damages TREBLED [means "TRIPLED"] to $778,098 under [FEDERAL RICO] 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)). It [the jury] also awarded... [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $87,000 in damages for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION [under state law]. Finally, the jury awarded the... [the Plaintiff's] $500,000 in PUNITIVE DAMAGES under...[state law]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph at about 25% through the text of the case.). Thus, under the law, Eddie Craig is liable to his own SEMINAR customers for TRIPLE their losses under FEDERAL RICO and is liable to his own Seminar Customers for ACTUAL and PUNITIVE DAMAGES under STATE law.

2). Cohen v. Trump, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13603216179463577076&q=%22Cohen+v.+Trump%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "Defendant [here]... offer[ed] SEMINARS... purporting [means "pretending"] to teach Defendant's 'MASTER STRATEGIES' for... SUCCESS [just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "Learn from the MASTER [just like Eddie Craig effectively describes himself to his own SEMINAR customers while pretending to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"]". For the law on how FEDERAL RICO law applies to Eddie Craig under these facts, read the entire "DISCUSSION" section of the case at the 16th and 17th full paragraphs, not including block indented paragraphs for quoted portions, at about 40% through the text of the case.

3). Maida v. Sherman, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14610347749862677361&q=%22maida+v.+sherman%22+%22defendants+gave+public+seminars%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[T]he... defendants [here] held themselves out as [being] capable of 'repairing' broken credit... . The... defendants [here] gave public SEMINARS... in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee... ." (The preceding text is in the 16th full paragraph, immediately below the section entitled "B. Credit Repair Program", at about 25% through the text of the case.).; "[The defendants here] represented [to their SEMINAR customers] that, BY FOLLOWING... [their own methods which they taught their own SEMINAR customers], they had [SUCCESSFULLY] improved their [own] credit scores... . [and] that they had received many personal benefits from the... program [which they taught their own SEMINAR customers]... [similar to what Eddie Craig fraudulently represents to his own SEMINAR customers]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 17th paragraph at about 27% through the text of the case.).; "On the basis of these MISREPRESENTATIONS,... . [the defendants' customers] paid [the] defendants $1,698 in... fees [just like Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers pay him based on similar fraudulent MISREPRESENTATIONS]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 18th full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "[But] no credit score improvement... occurred... . [Indeed, the defendants' own SEMINAR customer's] credit score HAS GOTTEN SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE [similar to what happens to Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers who rely on his advice in their own traffic court cases]." (The immediately text is in the 19th full paragraph at about 33% through the text of the case.). For an explanation of how FEDERAL RICO applies to Class under these facts, read section "V C. Civil RICO" at about 85% through the text of the case.

NOTE: For an entire series of legal hoaxes by a similar charlatan, CLICK HERE! http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes. Read them all. They are simply unbelievable.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.

The message to all HOAXERS and CHARLATANS? Just tell the truth.