Saturday, August 3, 2013

Accountability For People: License and Registration, the conversion of natura...

Thursday, July 18, 2013

License and Registration, the conversion of natural unaleinable individual rights into micromanaged, monitored mere privileges.

License and Registration, the conversion of natural unaleinable individual rights into micromanaged, monitored mere privileges.

I am going to use the automobile as an example to explain exactly how this all works. The automobile is simply the easiest way to see the truth of it. The proess I am about to describe and explain applies to ALL activities where registration or license is involved. LICE...NSE, is permission, as the author of my book when I released it my position on this was made very clear. As the sole owner of my copyright, having entered into no privileged contractual agreements with civil government, licensing authority flows from ownership. I as the owner have the power to license agents to sell it on my behalf without violating copyright law. ALL licensing authority flows from ownership.

To begin, your motor vehicle license registration and title are not what you believe they are. Your title is not even title, it is CERTIFICATE of title. This certificate is a receipt for the rights and property you have traded to civil government that can be redeemed by canceling the registration agreement. EVERY SINGLE TIME it is that an American waives rights or transfers rights, property, or other security interests to the hands of government, it is ALWAYS done by signed hand written authorized consent submitted via application for registration.

Rights are not inALIENable, you can certainly alienate them by your signed consent in a contract. Rights are unALEINable, meaning they cannot be taken from you WITHOUT your consent. So the automobile. The moment you purchase a car and pay for it your receipt is your actual title, evidence, proof of purchase/absolute ownership, allodial title if you will. There is NO SUCH THING as an obligation of LAW to register this. Just like a bicycle you have all the authority you require to make lawful use of that property in the enjoyment of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, WITHOUT permission. As a matter of fact your automobile ONLY becomes DIFFERENT from your BICYCLE.....WHEN it is REGISTERED.

REGISTER, is a very old word holding it's origins in maritime admiralty law. Registration as a verb, means "to sign over for safe keeping", to leave to the discretion of another". This s evidenced because it is exactly what you are doing when you register your car. You are signing absolute ownership "allodial title" over to the State in return for partial, for a taxable privilege of limited liability protection. At this moment you are no longer claiming and exercising rights, but privileges. Registration is an act of abandonment, and your property is seized under maritime admiralty salvage. You further beg in your application to continue to use the property you are signing over under a protected privilege. The State having accepted ownership happily now permits you to use State property, the car you just signed over. A driver's license is NOT permission to own property, you are born with that right, it is not permission to use the nation common ways, again that is a natural right unanimously upheld by the supreme court in an impressive array of cases I will be happy to cite at the end of this post. Your license from the State is only permission to use State property, the car you just abandoned and they seized. And because you have voluntarily consented, the State now holds that allodial title as surety against you for your compliance to the terms and conditions of that voluntary registration contract which are encoded in the Motor Vehicle Code. That code IS NOT LAW. It is merely the terms and conditions of an agreement. LAW i the lawful defense of individual rights, this ACT is NOT LAW because it is a contract and all contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing as an obligation of law to agree. Agreement by it's very nature is consensual. In this registration agreement you waive ALL rights related to the property and activity as well. This is why a cop can arbitrarily seize or impound your car in violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment. You waived your right to not be deprived of property absent conviction of a crime by a jury. ALSO the cop is not seizing YOUR car, they are seizing the STATE'S car, due to a material breech of the registration agreement. These cops are not enforcing law. They are enforcing the terms and conditions of the contracts of the corporate fiction defrauding the people. Refusing the privileged limited liability agreement and exercising the right is a big responsibility, but the only duty you must accept to exercise a right is to cause harm to no one through that claim and exercise of rights. You do not sacrifice the right by refusing the contract you actually only sacrifice the rights by accepting it.

Every time you subject yourself to the terms and conditions of a civil contract like this you receive a certificate in return for the rights and property you are signing over to the State. Certificate of Title, Certificate of Birth, Certificate of Marriage, firearms permits, building permits, hunting permits, fishing permits, pet ownership permits, ALL of these activities are lawful. All of the activities the licensing body is licensing MUST be lawful outside of the limited liability privileged licensing framework, otherwise the licensing body is licensing crime, and last I checked I could not get an armed robbery permit.

This is also the same authority which gives CPS it's power to come into your home without a warrant and seize your children. Again you waive ALL rights in these contracts including birth registration agreements. You waive the right to be secure in your person papers and affects. And again CPS is NOT seizing YOUR child, they are seizing the STATE'S child, whom was signed over to them for safe keeping in the birth registration contract. This is why the STATE can compel YOU to send THEIR child to their indoctrination camps, why they can compel parents to vaccinate THEIR child. Without a birth registration contract this authority does not exist over the parent. The parent is the highest authority over the child. The State has ZERO jurisdiction over anything which was not signed over to it voluntarily in a registration agreement. If they spelled it right and called it a BERTH registration it would be easier to see, they just change the spelling to confuse people. A birth certificate is a certificate of manifest. They have people in maritime admiralty law by getting them to act like boats engaged in foreign commerce of their own signed consent protected under a government contract of limited liability privileges. ECH of these contracts has their own terms and conditions throughout the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations. You can identify them quite easily they say ACT right in the title. Social security registration relates to the income tax, automobile registration relates to the Motor Vehicle Act, marriage registration has its own which I have admittedly not looked too much into, but ti is all the same, and all voluntary.

Statutes are these terms and conditions of these contracts. Statutory rules CAN be laws but every time that is true an lement of harm to another exists. They are not law because some lawyer wrote them and included them in a rule book, but because they derive from the supreme law of the land, the individual rights of the people. When these statutory rules infringe laws (rights are laws), they are void. ALL statutory rules are children of and restrained by the highest law, which is not the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, those are simply documents that protect rights and establish our form of government. A nation wide common law jurisdiction and a self governing constitutional republic. The highest law is literally the individual rights of the people, ALL rights, enumerated and not enumerated, ALL Americans may claim and exercise ANY right which causes no harm. Law is grounded in self evident truth. For example. It is self evident that there is no such thing as an obligation of law to sign your rights and property over to the state in order to make lawful use and enjoyment of them. It is self evident that no one needs permission to exercise a right, and that such permission when accepted converts a right into a privilege. It is self evident that ALL Americans are free equal, and KING, but their rule applies only to them self in a self governing Constitutional Republic. It is self evident that the conversion in technology and the conveyance of the day, did not grant new powers to government, so unless one can show me the registration and license/ license plate on George Washington's Horse's ass there is no more lawful authority to regulate your method of travel today than there was in 1776.

Here is some good case law now to support everything I have said. The spirit of law is excellent, but it is always good to have the letter that supports the spirit.
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813;
 Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added.]

The Right to Travel

"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." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor
Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark,
214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile,
is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common
Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
[emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the
highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter
purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a
privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its
discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P.
171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a
Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in
whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of
Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and
obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to
enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In
State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and
obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is: "The
former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while
the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” “This distinction, elementary
and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City
of Spokane, supra.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his
property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and
obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and
uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is
the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter
is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85
SE 781.

The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a
common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire
and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right,
in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the
existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or
wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose
of life and business."


"To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of
individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the
peculiar province of the judicial department. The judicial power "is the power to
hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the
citizens of the state." City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644,
35 A.L.R. 872, 878. Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.

Without standing there is no actual or
justiciable controversy and courts will not entertain such cases.
Clifford v Superior Court 45 Cal Rptr 2nd 333, 335

Freedom and Rights

"“The Individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.”

“His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can

only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.”

“Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure

except under warrant of the law.” “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale Vs.

Henkel., 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906). "

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a

license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce” Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.

“Law of the Land” means “The Common Law.”Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) Justice Bronson. Webster’s definition of

“Law of the Land” at Dartmouth, 4 Wheat. 518, 581.The CONSITUION,as the law of the land, has to honor the COMMON LAW and then

the Federal or State laws have to abide under that...period. When it or they do not, they are LAWBREAKERS.

"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one
of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as
a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent
on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights
[remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private
property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442.

"The general
rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the
name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to
obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."16th
American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Finding that the statute conflicted with the Federal Constitution,
Marshall considered it “the essence of judicial duty” to follow the
Constitution.He concluded that “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of
the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be
essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument” It is a proposition too plain to be contested,
that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the
legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these
alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a
superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the
legislature shall please to alter it… . If the former part of the alternative be
true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the
latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the
part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Marbury
vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise ...of a constitutional Right cannot be
converted into... a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

No comments:

Post a Comment