Real Law Basics
The highest sovereign power is the nation-state, a "public body corporate", a country in accordance with public international law. At this level there is really no binding authority or effective force to hold nations accountable. Nations may have treaties with other nations, but they are honoured voluntarily, with no repercussions other than public stigma or the potential action of an injured party in the event of a breach.
While every nation is free to do things their own way, in general, next are internal states (or provinces), in accordance with national law, and [counties and] municipalities, in accordance with state law. National law trumps state law, and state law trumps regional and municipal law. Where treaties exist, international law trumps national law.
Each jurisdiction, be it federal, state, county, municipal, etc., is sovereign unto itself, subject to its parent, with federal being the highest authority in the nation. In general, a federal court cannot hear a state matter, except on appeal and in accordance with state law. A federal court cannot interfere in state matters, except where they violate federal law. A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all. A county or municipal court cannot hear a state or federal matter.
Applicability of Law
Unless you make your own law (that nobody cares about) it is impossible to appear in law except under a nation-state. You can't contract out of national law because the contract law you're using is subject to that same nation. Likewise, you can't call citizenship a trust because there is no position or law above the nation to call it a trust from. The nation dictates how things operate and there is nothing lawful you can do about it short of leaving the area, starting your own nation and declaring war.
The laws of a nation-state apply equally to everyone. Anyone in or on territory claimed by a nation is expected to conform to all the laws of the nation, state and municipality (as applicable). Where one does not wish to conform and is forced to, there is no lawful remedy one can employ to collect compensation. One can only potentially be awarded damages when federal, state or municipal laws are violated. There is no higher law as some believe. This could be viewed as an unfortunate case of might making right. Theories about what makes such a social contract legitimate vary from divine blessing to tacit acceptance by staying in a claimed area or using the products of society.
Until such time as a superior court deems a piece of legislation unconstitutional or invalid it is in full force and effect. The way it works is this: bad laws are enacted, someone is eventually harmed, that someone now has standing to sue and challenge the law to potentially have it struck down. It is not up to individuals to determine the constitutionality of laws or declare them invalid. Only the highest courts can do this.
Common Law vs. Statute Law
Many seem to think common law trumps statute law. This is false. The local federal, state and municipal constitutions and legislatures are supreme. Statutes have always displaced common law, since the first English statutes. The constitution, king and parliament (or congress, state legislature or regional council) have always been stronger than the judges and courts they employ in their realm.
Again, the nation-state is the highest entity in law. Sovereign states can choose to receive third party law, such as English law. English colonies automatically receive English law whereas the US received it voluntarily via reception statutes, clearly subject to local law. Local governments, being sovereign inasmuch as they do not violate higher national, state or regional law, are always able to overturn foreign law they inherited or received.
Contract Law – Is silence consent?
There is a common misconception based on the spongy maxim "silence is consent" that one can simply send a Notice, Affidavit, Fee Schedule or other document with a time limit for response and failing that response a binding contract is made. This is not valid contract law. According to the reigning case law (contracts remain primarily at common law), contracts cannot be established unilaterally through silence, there must be a clear offer and acceptance and meeting of the minds. The recipient failing to respond in a certain time is not binding unless there is some specific valid governing legislation or common law that dictates the same. For example, many Acts, contracts, court rules, etc. dictate that certain notices and time limits apply.
UCC-1, PPSA and other Financing Statements
When a document is ignored a wayward pseudolaw proponent may turn to abusing other legal processes to try to enforce their view of the law. A common method is through UCC or PPSA filings (for the US or Canada, respectively), as these are not checked for validity at the time of filing. Such filings are a direct attack on the well-being of a person and can severely affect their economic status, credit rating, etc. In some jurisdictions frivolous or vexatious filings can garner cash awards, years in jail or both.
Financing statements are a form of expressing interest in collateral. In order for collateral to be properly owed to a secured party and qualify for a filing a clear contract or security agreement describing the intent and collateral must exist between the would-be secured party creditor and debtor. In the US and Canada, pursuant to UCC, PPSA or other legislation such as a Statute of Frauds, the debtor must authenticate the security agreement by signature.
Where no collateral is involved, financing statements are useless and improper. For a standard contract, one would simply sue in court to obtain a judgment which would allow garnishment of income and seizure of assets.
Definition of Legal Terms
A common mistake is applying definitions of legal terms universally, often from an incorrect source. One might think a law dictionary is the best place to define words for use in law. This is unfortunately incorrect. The first place a court looks for a definition is in the Act related to the specific charge. If the charge is a state traffic violation, for example, the state traffic code and definitions found therein would apply. Where a word isn't defined in legislation a court might look to its own past rulings, a superior court or any number of dictionaries or other sources for suggestions before deciding for itself what a word means.
Meads v. Meads
A Canadian case, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, explores numerous pseudo-legal theories at length. It is highly recommended to read the case in full.
Are you mind warped or just ignorant? The government was not created to issue or create rights. No imperfect human, has any right or power over another. For that to happen, they would have to be perfect. Not psychotic in their own mind, to think they are better than anyone. Society does not exist. Individuals exist. No one individual has any more right, than another. So therefore, your point is moot and obscure. You are trying to force free individuals, into the thinking process of other individuals. That is the definition of Tyranny and Sociopath. So in no way can you say any individual owes anything to society. It was one man that invented the internet, it was one man that came up with the turbine engine. Your outlook on life is sadly twisted and wrong. You must really support the devil!
Sorry, but this site is set in reality, where people actually interact with each other and the environment, and not in some kind of wacky thought experiment vacuum out of a first-year philosophy textbook, where countless Sovereigns float through space consuming nothing, producing nothing, and doing absolutely nothing of any utility to anybody.
Then please leave the real world, where no human made it rain. So they have no right to sell the ground water to the rest. No human made the land under our feet. So they have no right to claim they own it. No human created the food we eat. So they can not sell it to us. Why do you not want to live in the real world Ken S. Why do you support the theory that other humans are superior to some. When in reality, none are! None have more rights and society does not exist, except in the heads of the weak who can not live on their own, and rely on the rest of the individuals to do it for them. Are you one of those weaker vessels and that is why you wont let go of others? Why not be a HUMAN instead of entity? Cause you have a warped sense of reality? NO NATURAL HUMAN would want to live in your reality!
No human made it rain, but quite a few humans work quite hard to treat and pump clean water to people who don't have their own pumps or access to groundwater. No human made the land under our feet, but quite a few humans have spent time, effort, and money to develop and maintain it. As for food, that's just wrong outright — unless you literally harvest every thing you eat for yourself, there's somebody working hard to raise food animals and grow crops for you to eat. The real world is one where people interact with each other as part of a community with organization and standards of conduct and delegated responsibilities instead of bizarre self-sufficient hermits in the woods muttering to a squirrel skull about how we're truly sovereign now, both of us, my little squirrel friend…my love…
But you're on the internet, so I already know you depend on the labor of others, and participate in the world you claim to repudiate. I strongly doubt that you practice even a shred of the sovereign independence you preach.
Well seeing those same humans went out of their way, to make it harder for the rest of the humans to afford pumps and the shovels needed to dig out their own water. Clearly those "hardworking" people, are only working hard at stealing the resources so others have to purchase them from them. So your THEORY (cause it clearly isnt working in the real world!) on relying on a society is flawed from the ground up! Time to step back and realize, we are all EQUAL and NO ONE HUMAN has ANYMORE RIGHTS THAN THE OTHER! Lets also discuss the FREE INTERNET, THAT 1 MAN CREATED FOR ALL TO USE FREELY! BUT MORONS LIKE YOU, ARE TRYING TO STEAL IT AND CHARGE FOR IT. SO YOU ARE CLEARLY WHATS WRONG WITH HUMANITY! And lets stop lying to yourself! NO ONE IS WORKING HARD TO MAKE THE LAND ANY BETTER! ALL YOU USERS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH FOR PERSONAL GAIN. NOT FOR THE BETTER OF ALL! SO GET YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR ASS AND REALIZE YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG SINCE THE START! If your way worked, WE WOULD ALL BE LIVING IN PEACE AND HARMONY! CLEARLY YOU ARE THE DUMBEST LINK! GOODBYE!
Off to go shoot some cops about it?
No, unlike you. Im not a SOCIOPATH (Serial killer!) I have NO desire to have power or authority over others! Im not a NAZI oppressor like you. Unlike Policy enforcers. I do not kill when morons do not listen. Only a psycho uses violence to get their point across or to intimidate, cause they lack education and common sense like you! Keep supporting Domestic Terrorism. You clearly are a child of the Devil!
Except that you want to forbid anybody from selling the fruits of their labor if you deem their product something that's "supposed to be free." Even if I clean and pump the water, I "have no right to sell it." Even if I grow and harvest the crop, I "have no right to sell it." Even if I build and lay the fiber-optic cable, you denounce me for "stealing the internet" if I charge for it. Sovereign philosophy doesn't seem consistent with Communism, so I really don't understand what you want.
Realize, you do not have the right to the raw materials to begin with. You can not take from the ground, what you did not make appear and then sell it to other humans. Your labor means nothing! Just cause you went out of your way to steal the material from the ground to begin with. The point you miss, is you are not entitled to make money off of what you did not make appear on the earth to begin with. Make it rain, then you can sell others water. Make silver or gold appear in the earth, then you can mine it to sell it. Make a seed appear out of nowhere, then you can grow it to sell it. Till then, your point remains moot and invalid!
So…are beavers stealing when they build a dam? Are trees stealing when they suck water up out of the soil? Are algae stealing from the sun when they photosynthesize? Every animal needs to use natural resources in order to survive. So far as I can tell, you're telling me that the only moral way to live is to sit in a dark place, hold your breath, and wait until you die.
Yep thats exactly what she is saying Ken, but as my poor old mother used to say 'They are more to be pitied than scolded'
Rita – I am really sorry to tell you that everything Ken S has said is correct. You are living in cloud cukoo land with a tin foil hat to stop the negative vibes shrinking whats left of your brain. So pray tell me, which individual or individuals made it rain, made silver or gold, or invented seed from nowhere.
Gonna go kick a homeless person now Ken? I see you like to oppress and hold down other humans. You must be a special type of psycho!
You're the one who comes in screeching like a lunatic about how everybody who disagrees with you is a horrific monster, so I just figure that for somebody as deranged and paranoid as you, you'd have a fairly low threshold for violence. After all, it seems that everybody in the real world is a child of the devil from your perspective, and living that way must be pretty stressful. Not to mention that sovereign nutjobs have a history of murdering people they consider oppressors. Like me, apparently! 😀
Just cause you support evil and tyranny, does not make it wrong to point out your non human characteristics. You would have made hitler proud with your blind following ignorance. It takes a special kind of stupid, to think these laws are good or work!
They are well brainwashed freedom hating slaves that love their masters boot on their neck Rita….
Or just liars …Most likely that actually.
Their end fast approaches, because they know the people of the world are wakening and they are getting more and more brutal and psychopathic to hold their slave system together.
Their end is coming and like the Nazis they will hang for their lies and deceptions.
Way to prove your not a human and your desire is not to coexist with other humans. You would have made Hitler proud!
You seem to want to coexist even less. From everything I've read from you, you consider anybody with a job to be an evil sociopath who's inflicting a Satanic society on you with its evil laws that are restricting your natural right to…apparently just mooch off of everybody else? Or just magically receive everything you want out of thin air like manna from heaven? I've gotta ask, do you provide all your own food, water, shelter, and internet access without buying anything from anybody? If you had really rejected the society that exchanges goods, services, and labor in the framework of laws and courts, then there is no way that you would be commenting on a website. Aren't you a child of Satan, too, for voluntarily participating in a community like this? If your ideal is for us all to live as autonomous, sovereign, self-sufficient mountain men, then that means giving up the things we can only do together, within a community and the rules we make together. Things like the complex infrastructure and services needed to establish and maintain the Internet. You cannot accuse everybody around you while you're going to the same stores and using the same technology as the rest of us, supporting the same system that the rest of us have decided is necessary for our mutual safety and progress. You're being an absolute hypocrite, and I suspect that you're seriously mentally ill.
See, your so stupid you can not read. No one period has a right tu use raw materials from the earth, to sell to another person period! Everything from the earth, belongs to every human on the earth. No 1 individual ever has the rights to it over another. Wow you must be ignorant!
If I put in the work to chop down a tree and make a table out of it, who are you to say the table isn't mine to sell? If I grow wheat, who are you to say I shouldn't be paid for it? If I build a mine to collect iron ore, who are you to say I have no right to sell it to somebody who wants to make steel? More importantly, what are you going to do to prevent me from charging money for the fruit of my labor? This isn't Star Trek where people only get jobs because they think it'd be fun — the ability to benefit from the sale of goods is pretty important to the existence of the economy. There are no goods to sell without raw materials, and we don't have another source of raw materials besides the Earth. Nobody outside of a psychiatric institution is going to back you up on this.
I do love me some Trek…
The Holohoax was bullshit too though! Hitler believed in a society in harmony with nature and made it a priority to protect the environment and animals. Everything about the Germans and WW2 has been lied about to no end, for the benefit of a small group of international hyenas.
P.S. I love the idea that water utilities are part of a conspiracy to make shovels and pumps more expensive. On that note, if it's evil to sell water, isn't it evil to sell pumps and shovels? Isn't it evil to sell the parts and tools used to build pumps and shovels? Isn't all of this just the same as me trying to "steal the internet" which was apparently invented by one person (who?) for everybody? Aren't you destroying the Earth by using the internet with technology built and sold by companies that buy evil shovels and cables and routers but which should apparently are supposed to be doing this for free? BTW I would have gotten away with the great Internet heist if it weren't for the big hole in my burlap sack! All the internet ran out while I was running to my getaway car.
Your lack of education shines through! Keep making my point more valid!
*should apparently be doing this for free
The Man Who Stole the Internet!! 😉
Nonsense… in the absence of gold and silver the States of the Union were overthrown and the pretense of a Constitutional national "government" debunked. Rita is talking about unalienable rights which cannot be granted by men nor taken away by men.
Hey Rita, I agree that no one individual has more right than another. I think equality is exactly what many modern legal systems were created or have developed to ensure. But often we take it for granted, we don't see it, we don't use it… we just want to destroy it without fully understanding what our forefathers dreamed, fought for and built for us. There was a lot less fairness and justice in the past. No longer are we chained up in town square to be ridiculed publicly or executed at the whim of a monarch or for petty or prejudicial crimes. We've come a long way from the middle ages. Technology is making life a breeze and the people are being heard more and more. Try looking on the bright side and being thankful once in a while. <3
"""Hey Rita, I agree that no one individual has more right than another"""
then you must also agree than no government or corporation has more rights than the individual.
In America, the People retain their full sovereignty. The government has partial, specifically delegated sovereignty.
If you can't do it yourself, neither can the government. Welcome to America, where the criminals wear uniforms and robes.
Theoretically, you *can* do anything the government can do. If you were powerful enough, you could enforce environmental regulations all by yourself. If people would listen, you could write and publish those rules all alone if you pleased. If you had the influence to do it, you could establish a judiciary on your own personal authority. In fact, at this very moment you could overthrow the United States or any other government on Earth, appoint yourself Emperor Sam, and rule the world on your own say-so. There's no Supreme Meta-Law that prevents you from doing this. You have the authority to personally govern the entire planet as a dictator, if you have the strength to enforce your will.
The only trouble is that you don't, and neither do I, and neither does anyone else. There's a lot we can do as individuals, but it's very unlikely that we can become one-man governments. If a lot of people get together, though, they certainly have the ability to enforce their will and do at least some of the things I described above. That's what's happened in most countries, actually! A lot of people decided that they could accomplish more together than they could separately, and they created governments to pool their resources and strength.
So, you're half-right, but you're missing the target. It's sort of true, the government can't do anything that a single immensely powerful person couldn't do. The reality is that we've created governments stronger than any one of us precisely BECAUSE we want to do things bigger than any one of us could do. By forming a government and lending it our collective sovereignty, we're able to protect ourselves, improve our lives, send people to the moon, and otherwise enjoy the progress we've made since the introduction of agriculture in ways that we could never do as individuals.
ENTER YOUR SSI#, PLEASE…
Upon birth you were invested to be a million dollar baby! Me to but the numbers are way off. Your a good sport Ken! Thank you
I've heard this theory before, but I haven't seen any evidence that held up to scrutiny. What makes you believe in the strawman theory?
(By the way, that's not my SSN, it's Todd Davis's. At least it was before his identity was stolen over a dozen times.)
Was worried about things then 10 years ago I started listening to a minister pure KJV where Tom Gambile taught me. And I am a talk radio junkie for John B. Wells! This old worn out Veteran searchs desperately for truth sometimes. I find your thinking to be logical thats just about it.
The strawman theory is bunk, though. I hope you're not putting your finances at risk over it!
Church mouse poor enough for a C7 only.
how can you retain your full sovereignty when you've agreed to delegate so much authority to the state and federal government?
theories are nice, but living in the material world requires the occasional intrusion of a shared reality.
Are you interested in having contributed material? I think that the the sovcits and FMotL nuts are annoying and dangerous, and I would like to help make a resource that people can have as a counter to all of the the nutter websites promoting various versions of pseudolaw.
Reply if you are interested, and we can discuss more via email. You can use a pseudonym email address initially, if you want to preserve your privacy/anonymity.
One man may have thought up the internet, but it was not one man who brought it into actual existence. Similarly the turbine engine. Most of modern life consists of cooperation in a structured manner. To insist otherwise is to be detached from reality.
I wonder how many sovereign/freeman types would flip out if they realized that every one of their "common law" arguments is doubly worthless in Louisiana. When I've got better internet I'm going to have to look for some comedy gold from the Pelican State…
Whoever wrote this drivel does not know diddly about the law. Don't trust it. For example, it states " A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all." Until 1876 there were no federal district courts. All federal issues were heard in state courts at the initial level. Today it is a matter of jurisdiction in a specific federal matter. Federal matters cannot be heard in federal court unless the subject matter is civil rights, specific statutory grants of jurisdiction or in matters between two different citizens from two different states,and there is $50000 at issue- diversity jurisdiction.
What are you talking about? The federal district courts were established by the first Congress in 1789. Who told you that they weren't created until 1876?
Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I believe you're right that my statement "A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all." is deficient. Federal statutes do sometimes have provisions for enforcement by states and individuals in state courts. A helpful publication State Enforcement of Federal Law by Margaret H. Lemos, states in part:
One example is the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, which can be litigated in a state court, however the defendant has the option to remove the case to federal court and may commonly do so (Source).
I will have to consider how to update the page to better describe the distinct separation between state and federal jurisdictions without discounting their ability to delegate to one another. Thanks again.
PS. Don't trust me – I'm still learning, too! Question, think and verify for yourself.
If you are going to write articles about the Law , you should know the difference betweenlegal and lawfull.The United States "…is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War." Republica v. Sween.
The International Organization Immunities Act of 1945 placed all courts under the jurisdiction of the United Nations (reference Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations with Oaths of Office under section 92.12 and 92.31). Under Title 8 USC 1481all oath takers (judges, law enforcement officers, etc.) voluntarily forfeit their citizenship via the Oath of Office thus becoming foreign agents and are required to register under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (though they never do)
All federal and state elected officials, appointed administrators, federal police, sheriffs and judges receive their paychecks through OPM, the Office of Personnel Management. OPM is owned by the International Monetary Fund, which is owned by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their Banking Empires, which is treason.
"Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…" Congress, 1973. "When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution…" Congressman Beck, Congressional Record,1933. Currently, permanent state of national emergency. 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977; See: Executive Order 12919.
Oh but this section is about driving :
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways… Transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business. "Travel is not a privilege that can be permitted at will with forced insurances, registration, & licensing, but a common & fundamental right of liberty granted by the Constitution." Chicago Motor Coach Co. V. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200,169 N.E. 22.
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees…" Berberian v. Lussier 139 A2d 869, 872 (1958)
"…to be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrain this movement." US Supreme Court, Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322.
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. Vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613.
SO-CALLED CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes "fraud," and entitles party deceived to avoid contracts or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corp. V. Birnamwood Oil Co., 92 F.2d 817.
The terms are not fully disclosed at the time of signing for a driver license and when one is required to research to find the terms one has been forced to comply with it is considered fraudulent.
A fraudulent agreement imposes no duty. Our God-given rights are unalienable by the agreements of men NON-COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS ARE EXEMPT FROM LICENSING "…a statutory provision that the supervising officials "may" exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they "must exempt them." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
"It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder, (1972) 29 CA3d 213. "Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless." City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907 (Ill. 1898).
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways…to operate an automobile…is not a mere privilege…which the city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580.
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
NO VIOLATION FOR NOT HAVING A LICENSE OR A SUSPENDED LICENSE or even having a license "…It is absolutely necessary for the State to allege and prove that the accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a licensee, for, as we construe the statute…, it applies specifically to a licensee and unless the person accused was a licensee, we fail to understand how he could be guilty of violating the provisions of this portion of the statute." Barber v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 18 (1945) 191 S.W. 2D 879
NOTICE when the license is active…..that would be when one is actually "engaged in public business"…. But the license is not active when engaged in private business. The definition of a licensee is one who holds a current valid license. Only a licensee can violate a statute. A suspended license is not valid and therefore a suspended licensee is not subject to statutes.
"The acceptance of a license… will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." Collier v. Wallis 180 US 452 (1901) 333 US 426, 606 CL (1936) 56 P2d 602.
UCC PP 9-109.14. "It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, although it does not apply to private vehicles… not for hire."[ Desser v. Wichita, (1915), 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22]
THE DMV ONLY LICENSES COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
"The activity licensed by state DMVs – the operation of motor vehicles – is… related to interstate commerce". Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, Supreme Court of the United States decided January 12, 2000, BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS, Seth Waxman, Solicitor General U.S. Department of Justice.
USC Title 49 > Subtitle IV > Part B > Chapter 145 > § 14504a (10) Vehicle registration; The term "vehicle registration" means the registration of any commercial motor vehicle.
TRAFFIC STATUTES ONLY APPLY TO COMMERCIAL DRIVERS
"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2D 788.
Driving license and registration are irrelevant if the automobile is not being used in a commercial activity.
NON-COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT REQUIRE LICENSING OR REGISTRATION "A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer goods", …it is not a type of vehicle required to be registered and "use tax" paid of which the tab [tag] is evidence of receipt of the tax." Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484,
MY PRIVATE PROPERTY "CAR" IS NON-COMMERCIAL CONSUMER GOODS not a commercial motor vehicle
"Consumer goods – automobile for transportation to and from work… is a personal, as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109(l)… and… classified as consumer goods." IN RE BARNES United States District Court, D Maine, September 15, 1972 Bankruptcy No. BK 72-129ND, No. EK 72-13OND. In re Barnes, 11 USS rep. Serv. 697 (1972)
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE NOT CRIMES
"Traffic" matters are NOT criminal. State of Oregon v. Christine Dahl (2002) PR106249; A112549 Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County
"A [traffic] violation is not a crime." ORS 161.515. [Oregon Revised Statutes].
"Further, [traffic] infractions are not crimes…" (People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636].) fn. 1; ―FN 1. Battle soundly reasoned infractions are not crimes; hence, the Kellett rule was held inapplicable to prosecutions involving infractions. People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935 , 235 Cal.Rptr. 694 [No. D005040. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. March 27, 1987.] (NOTE: This case HAS NOT been overturned.)
The interstate compact for the enforcement of traffic infractions (The Motor Vehicle Compact), is NOT the enforcement of "criminal laws" but the enforcement of policies!
C'mon people wake up to the fraud the BAR association has perpetrated on the American people since about 1871 >
deleted for spam
Law crash course:
Government laws apply because they have the military and police force to enforce their law. Your consent is not required, and there is nowhere to argue otherwise because nobody else can defeat the military and police. The highest jurisdiction on earth is that of sovereign nation-states, countries, of which there are nearly 200 today. International law consists of treaties between nation-states, but there is little to no military or police force at that level to enforce the law, and international law violations can only be enforced by voluntary actions of other nation-states. The actual, enforceable law is based on national and state constitutions and legislation. Constitutions and legislation may import law from third parties. For example, on independence most of the US states imported English law, subject to their constitutions, legislation and common law decisions. In common law countries, judges are granted the power to interpret the constitutions and legislation, particularly where they are vague or silent, and set binding precedent equal to the power of statute law. Nevertheless, the highest law remains with the people through their representatives in legislature, who can change the constitution or legislation and overturn court precedent. When all of a country's institutions become corrupt and stop listening to their people the only remedy is for the people to overthrow the entire nation-state by force. Then a new nation-state is formed and the whole thing starts all over again.
LMFAO Good one. Only the Nationals/Cestui Que Trust/Benificiaries of a nation-state can change a Constitution!!! Not the trustee's or anyone else. Especially European Colonials, or Stateless persons!!!
Yeah, in the US at least, the government is based on popular sovereignty, which is the will of the majority of people. Unfortunately for you very few are of the view that individual sovereignty is conducive to law, order or good government. In a republic, the power to change the Constitution and laws is delegated to representatives.
"the government is based on popular sovereignty" If that's the case, the government has staged a coup d'etat – the constitution only set up the government – the sovereignty of the nation known as the United States of America can change it at any time, expressly or impliedly and with or without notice.
That doesn't make sense. The US is a federation, where individual states have the majority of power and have delegated some of it to a federal government. Unless the majority of the people within a state demonstrate their will isn't being heeded by their state representatives the state laws and federal compact remain valid.
"The US is a federation"
You are talking about the government created by the US Constitution – you are not talking about the sovereign nation for whom the government was set up. They are different – I know you know that fact, from other posts you have made.
So, now, how does majority rule constrain the sovereign, pseudolaw?
You just hate not having the last pseudolaw word, don't you, pseudolaw?
"western concept of popular sovereignty or consent of the governed."
If anyone wants to be "governed" – good for them. I'm just pointing out that the very term you are using – "popular sovereignty" is pseudolaw because there's nothing "popular" (which implies majority politics) about sovereignty – not now and not ever. You are conflating the two terms. "Popular democracy" more accurately labels what you have been describing.
What a bunch of legalistic bravo Sierra. Just come out and say it. The politicians are corrupt, the courts enforce what ever revenue generating laws the corrupt politicians pass, and law enforcement blindly does whatever either say…..the constitution be damned. That's why it's called the "just-us" system.
Any specific examples, or are you just here for an unsubstantiated rant? I didn't always view it this way but from what I can tell the US justice system is actually fairly reliable at protecting people's rights and awarding damages for violations.
Hi Pseudolaw, perhaps you can write a blog about how disciples of Pete Hendrickson ("Cracking The Code") apparently keep getting refunds on their personal income taxes for the entire amount they paid consistently for over 15 years now.
You can save us the part about him being indicted and the IRS BS calling him a "terrorist" we already know about – those of us who work in the "system" know people are indicted all the time for doing something legal that nonetheless angers the tyrannical US government.
Presumably, if what he is teaching were wrong (I read the book and a lot of what he is passing off as law is wrong), the IRS apparently would have stopped giving refunds – instead it's been over 15 years of refunds. Why hasn't the IRS tried to get those refunds back? Does 15 years of the IRS not trying to get the money back and not refraining from giving the money in the first place constitute a knowing relinquishment of rights and a factual admission that it was not entitled to the taxes originally paid? If not – why not?
I've been trying to see a reasonable explanation for the "Cracking The Code" phenomena for years now – and the only reasonable explanation so far is that Pete Hendrickson is right about something that gets people their tax money back – even as he cites cases that don't mean what he says and makes some dubious legal arguments.
The IRS often doesn't verify anything before issuing refunds, so misinformed people can receive them before they're discovered and they're fined or penalized. This helps gurus spread their ideas, but it doesn't generally last forever. Before you act on hearsay and try it for yourself, I recommend searching Google Scholar case law for Pete Hendrickson "cracking the code" and see how successful he and others following his theories have been and whether you really want to follow in their footsteps.
"The IRS often doesn't verify anything before issuing refunds"
Nah, all of the posted refund checks include correspondence with the IRS. It is clear that the IRS vetted the refund requests before issuing checks. You should take another look at those refund requests:
The cases you gave also don't help answer may question(s):
Gray was preparing returns for other individuals (unlike the cracking the code taxpayers seeking refund of their own taxes), Boyd was filing "zero income" returns (rather than filing conventional returns, paying the tax and then using a Hendrickson argument to get it back), Montero challenged frivolous filing fees in court (rather than challenging it in a letter like others who got the IRS to back off on it – also, the court stated "He received refunds for the amounts by which his income tax withholding exceeded his actual taxes due" – that amount could very well have meant he was refunded all of it), while Giambalvo affirmed convictions for filing "zero income" returns & suspiciously screwed him in limine by not allowing evidence that he truly did have "zero income" – again, this is not a refund case, like Giambalvo, Waltner filed original returns – not requests for refunds after paying the tax and was another frivolous return case.
Oh, and that's only 13 cases, none of which are on point (analogous to the requests for refunds found on Hendrickson's site) and 5 of the 13 are Hendrickson's own cases (which I excluded from scrutiny because I assume the IRS and the courts would nail him to the cross no matter what the law is). I estimate the number of successful refund returns for which correspondence with the IRS and checks from the US Treasury are posted number at least a couple hundred (and Hendrickson estimates that over 10 times that number were successful but haven't posted their victory on his website).
So, those cases don't answer my question.
In fact, they make the question burn stronger because, in the case of Giambalvo, he had tried to submit evidence of no deficiency, which was ordered excluded in limine by the tax court. On that point, the District Court said: "While the district could have admitted Giambalvo's evidence of no tax
deficiency, it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude it."
Why, when a taxpayer is told their "zero income" return is frivolous would evidence that the taxpayer really had zero income be excluded at trial?
For someone obsessed with leaving society you sure do spend a lot of time on it, trying to exploit its willing members for your own personal gain. At a glance many of those people have been prosecuted for their actions, which makes it a list of overwhelming dishonesty. Hendrickson was shut down in the courts and anyone who tries his theories stands to suffer the same fate. Have you considered that if there really were loopholes the government could simply close them through its legislative power? It's not like they're limited in the laws they can make.
"For someone obsessed with leaving society you sure do spend a lot of time on it"
For someone who purports to call out "pseudolaw" you sure spend a lot of time NOT answering the important questions, pseudolaw.
You can start with explaining 1) how the congressional resolutions in the Lincoln era ended martial law, despite not having force of law due to being concurrent and different resolutions, 2) explain how the US won the revolutionary war, despite the Treaty of Paris sticking the US with debts to the British when it was supposedly fought because of the financial burdens placed on colonists by the said British and 3) explain how a joint tenant in the sovereignty can be subject to the law instead of the source and author of the law.
Please use REAL law in your answers, instead of the pseudolaw you like to bandy about. When I mean real law, I mean, if your answer deals in practicalities and fears such as "it has to be that way; otherwise, there would be chaos" – that's pseudolaw – the very thing you set up this site to supposedly "debunk." Good luck.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your "exploit…for personal gain" comment, pseudolaw. Got facts?
Thanks Ken. Like Society, Stop Lights at an intersection do not exist either, and therefore should be absolutely disregarded along with the traffic going in the direction perpendicular to your travel. However, I suggest few of those who follow Pseudo laws fail to ignore stop lights,
Well, you got the name of the site correct for the ideas you're putting out. This country isn't by the corporation, of the corporation, for the corporation. You completely fail to tell the story of the power vested in the people and the fraud they've been suffering with since the fraud of the municipal and territorial governments impersonated the Confederation and Federal Republic. Where are they now? Being reconstructed after breaking up due to the losses of the Civil War in the south.