Jurisdiction (USA)

Jurisdiction

The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the Courts may operate:

Common Law

Common Law is based on God's Law: Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW. This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

Equity Law

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of the contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the Court , you can be charged with the contempt of Court , this is a criminal action. Are our seat belt laws Equity laws? No. They are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of the contract. [This has of course changed since the publishing of the article, so read on....]

Admiralty/Maritime Law

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file) that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the Courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M] Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it A/M Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

[My note: I looked for Statutory Jurisdiction in the 4th edition of Black's. It's not there, so looked up Statute and under the definition is this paragraph: This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown, 199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law. Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can look up, but it means as opposed to, opposite to. Also I looked up Common Law (with my new understanding) and it's quite enlightening!]

Courts of Contract

You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear set belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced, Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the Courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own Courts. We will cover this more later.

Contracts must be voluntary

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic - it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contract -- the dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract that said, For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house.. And suppose for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law Court and get justice? NO, you could not. You see a Federal Reserve Note is a colorable dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

Colorable Money-Colorable Courts

The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but it if is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is a colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable money. Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

Uniform Commercial Code

The government set up a colorable law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is colorable law, and it is used in all the Courts.

I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says Jump! then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This colorable jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.

Contract or agreement

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the Uniform Commercial Code this is not so. First of all, contracts are necessary. Under this new law, agreements can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an agreement it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it's the driver's license, the marriage license, or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it's none of these.

Compelled Benefit

I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of DISCHARGING DEBT [my emphasis...] with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not PAID for it.[my emphasis...] There is no substance in the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use this colorable money to discharge our debts, we cannot use Common Law Court. We can only use colorable Court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying the debt.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)

"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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, 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 a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

"Without Prejudice" - UCC 1-207.

Your protection from any Compulsory Arbitration contractual clause...
Your remedy for a contract fraudulently passed off on you...



"Without Prejudice"
UCC 1-207



The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that it is possible for a person to get beaten by the opposition.
That it is possible for a person to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that he would not sign if he had true free agency.
The UCC provides that if you sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if you do so "without prejudice" or "under protest," then you preserve all your rights and can get even (i.e. sue to recover those rights) later.

------------------------------

Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207, says as follows:

"Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights

"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient."

------------------------------

If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed "without prejudice":

"It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement."

-------------------

The Uniform Commercial Code is admiralty law which has come on shore. The "without prejudice" clause is the window which enables one to assert his 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the common law.

Some people are putting the words, "without prejudice" on everything they sign, above the signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks--everything.

email from 'Think Free Be Free' , re : peace officers

"

This is an email from 'Think Free Be Free'

Message:
TO: Cnst Tupper and Sarah (AKA 'Peppermint Patty' and 'Marcie') North Vancouver RCMP Detachment
CC: All Peace Officers in British Columbia,
CC: TWIMC

Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard, a non-consenting and ungoverned Freeman-on-the-Land. I am the Director of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and the Director of ThinkFREE.ca We work together as organizations dedicated to creating a freer and more just society, where authority is gained without deception and exercised with restraint, understanding, accountability and compassion. We employ only lawful tools specifically but not limited to seminars, printed publications, advocacy, public activism and lawful claims. Recognizing the importance of peace, we employ words designed to create a greater abundance of that commodity for us all.

This does not mean we shy from our duty of speaking truth to power, only that we will try to do so in a manner that serves human dignity. Allow me to share a little about me. I love God, the child Elizabeth, this Country and the Law. I will not be abandoning any of them, nor will I be breaking my existing Oaths to them. I recognize and embrace a duty of compassion to my fellow man and a duty of respect to office holders. I do not harm without provocation and I will not accept subjugation or any form of governance without my consent. I follow My Soul and will not accept that some stranger using words alien to me can craft laws completely devoid of love, compassion and truth and claim they are law over me. They are deceivers, and I do not accept them or their words.

It is a mixed pleasure for me to be able to start this correspondence with appreciation for the way the officers I met exercised their authority. Although not perfect, they were at least moderately professional, somewhat courteous and by acting with some compassion, earned a little of my respect and gave me something precious. Their actions gave me hope and allows me to believe that the coming shift can in fact be a positive one, where change results not in destruction but positive growth. By responding with such professionalism, courtesy and restraint in the face of the frustration that I seem to naturally create merely by being me, these officers brought to your detachment, force and other officer holders some much needed public esteem, and for that I am thankful and appreciative.

However, on the day I was pulled over by two female officers, whom I call 'Peppermint Patty and Marcie', only because one looked just like Peppermint Patty and the other deferred to the Peppermint Patty looking one, I saw a complete lack of understanding concerning the source, nature and limits of authority, as they exited Equity to affect that which existed only at Law. It is akin to a security guard at a private party who leaves the party to cross the road, attack people in the park and kidnapping them, drags them into the house party and attempts to punish them for what they did outside the party, because doing so inside the party would be against the rules. This is what happens when those entrusted with security fail to acknowledge the limits of their authority, which in order to be lawful, must always exist.

I am not a person in the legal entity known as The Province of British Columbia and yet was treated like one by Peppermint Patty and Marcie even though no one saw evidence of an equity relationship between myself and that fiction. They saw no ID or anything else issued to me by that legal entity. They saw a human being in the geographical area known as British Columbia and then assumed I was also a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia.” The first is a geographical area; the second is a legal fiction, and people simply can't exist within it without doing so through an association with a fictional person. They did not know this and therefore are guilty of gross negligence which I am sure you must know is equal to FRAUD. Additionally, one gave me an order in a common law jurisdiction which I accepted under protest and duress. Perhaps you do not know what the legal significance of operating under protest is, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and by ordering me, they became liable for a bill. Orders generate bills. Ask any waitress, lawyer or judge. They now owe me and I do intend to see payment. The reason they owe me is because I have a fee schedule filed as well as notices and claims allowing me to make these claims. Their principal was aware of this and if they failed to inform their underlings, that is not my fault. The reason I will see payment secured is because I am bound by My Faith to do so, although I am also bound to give you a great big fat out. We will discuss that later in this missive.

I claim you owe me $2000 per hour or portion thereof for anything I do as a result of an order accepted and fulfilled under protest. If you do not know what the commercial and legal significance of operating under protest is, I suggest you see a lawyer. Trust me on this though, you owe me $8000. Because you were marginally professional and courteous, I will immediately halve that. You now owe me $4000. Also, the RCMP as a whole owe me the same amount, for I am claiming punitive and exemplary damages. I will be collecting from them as well, and if necessary will do so completely lawfully by eventually seizing and auctioning off one of their vehicles. I believe it is not theft if you have a default judgement allowing you to seize and sell in order to recover on a lawful debt.

Perhaps you are wondering how I will do any of these things, as I am sure you are thinking “The courts won't allow that; they are on our side.” Here is where you really need some education. I will be if necessary convening a court and using a Notary Public to conduct the first part concerning the exchange of affidavits and establishment of facts. You will have to respond by way of a sworn affidavit submitted to the Notary Public holding court. If you fail a default judgement will be secured and collection proceedings initiated. If you do respond, you will have to do so under your full commercial liability and under oath. If you are found saying untrue things or expressing falsehoods under oath, you risk facing criminal charges of gross negligence and abduction under the colour of law. If you don't think I can do such a thing with a Notary, you need to read Section 18 of the Notary Act. They are the joker of the deck and can do anything, you, a judge or a sheriff can do. They are all powerful when they choose to serve justice. They are the lawful witnesses to process and standards. Notary Publics ROCK.

As you said when you were giving me a copy of a bill of exchange which you refused to present properly, breaking the law has consequences. However what you did not realize at the time you spoke is that it is you will meet the consequences, as it is you who broke the law, and I will be proving that to a very high degree. I will promise to attempt to do so mindful of your professionalism and with regard to the courtesy to which I was treated.

I am aware that you must have felt I was breaking the law and that you were responding lawfully to my perceived transgressions of the law. You feel you have colour of right, but this colour of right is due only to you failing to perform due diligence. Your perception must change. However what you then pointed to was an Act or statute, and they simply do not have to force of law over those who do not consent. You can evidence their consent by seeing government issued ID. If you don't see that however, how do you know I do consent? Will you bring your gun to bear and use that to generate consent and then claim you were acting lawfully?

At no point in time did I identify myself as a person in The Province of British Columbia; you claimed that and continued to do so even though you never saw evidence thereof and i told you I was a Freeman-on-the-Land. Did you find ID? Did you find ANYTHING issued to me by them resulting from an act of application on my part? No you did not. So what makes you think I am a person in the Province of British Columbia if not your own gross negligence? What exactly did I do that would make you think that the Motor Vehicle Act is my law? What evidence do you have I consented to such a thing? You have nothing and yet still you felt comfortable and justified in bringing an implied threat of violence against a Freeman-on-the-Land and claimed the right and power to do so under statutorily granted authority. You saw no breach of the peace nor were you informed of one; you stopped me merely to enforce a statute even though the statute you sought to enforce does not enjoy the force of law over me.

And you wanted to lecture me about 'consequences'?

Peppermint Patty, let us examine your beliefs and then using logic, reason and the law, my very mighty pen will destroy all those false assumptions. Before I do so, I would like to again commend you on your level of professionalism, restraint and compassion and I hope you realize my goal is to increase your understanding without attacking any of the good attributes you have already demonstrated as possessing.

1.You assumed Acts are laws.

2.You assumed all automobiles are motor vehicles and subject to the Motor Vehicle Act.

3.You assumed all people in British Columbia are also persons in the Province of British Columbia.

4.You assumed you could give orders and not be personally liable for a bill.

1 - An Act is not a law; it is a statute and defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. See the mutual consent part? If you have no evidence that I am a consenting member of a legally nameable society, why are you attempting to enforce statutes against me like they are my law?

2 - As for your mistaken belief that all automobiles are also motor vehicles, the facts of the matter are, if you read the Motor Vehicle Act carefully you will see that although they do define a motor vehicle, it simply is not a full and complete definition, and if you assume it is, you will not know the truth. Is it a full and complete definition? Is 'accident' fully and completely defined, because if not, then either none are or some are and some aren't and there is a mechanism in place for determining such things. I see no such mechanism. Plus when I look to Section 3.1 I see that the owner must apply for an receive insurance and registration and you likely interpret this as an obligation on me and empowering to you.

However, the word must is not always an imperative and can be used to describe situations which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant authority. If I say you must come to my party through the front door' does that create an obligation to attend or merely describe the conditions which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant me power over you, as you will be in my party? The word apply legally means to beg, and since no one is ever obliged to beg, no one is ever obliged to apply. Unregistered automobiles are not motor vehicles and thus not subject to the Motor Vehicle Act. You will likely not like that truth, as it negatively affects your ability to claim and exercise authority and like all people, you do not wish to interpret anything in a manner that dis-empowers you; it is against human nature.

3 – Although I will agree that generally speaking a person is a human being, when it comes to the law that is not the case, as the law uses legalese and as it is a complex and professional jargon. When you see the word person in a statute, it is referring to a legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes and which exists in an association with our bodies, provided we consent to it. See the thing is, The Province of British Columbia is not a geographical area, but a man-made legal fiction, and just as a human being cannot exist within a novel or other work of fiction, but characters representing human can, so too is the case here. As I human being I exist in British Columbia. IF I choose to be governed and regulated, ordered and controlled, then I will agree to having a person upon which you can act and which will effect my body as long as I maintain a free association with it. If however I disassociate from it, you can no longer claim to be acting on a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'.

4 – You gave me an order, and you accepted my performance of service under protest and duress. Perhaps you have been giving such orders for so long and have achieved such compliance through intimidation that you are unfamiliar with the truth. Anyone in a common law jurisdiction who gives an order for performance is immediately liable for a bill. This goes for judges, police and government agents. You can't escape the law and the law says that bills follow orders and orders generate bills. If anyone else goes to a restaurant, places and order and receives service are they not then liable for a bill? Do you claim the right to go to a restaurant, place an order and not be liable for a bill? If not, under what function of law can you place an order on someone outside a restaurant and not still be liable for the bill your order generates? So you know, this process has been tried and tested in New Zealand, another common law jurisdiction, and payment was secured form the Judge for his order. If a Judge in a common law jurisdiction recognizes that orders from anyone to anyone generates a lawful bill, why can't you? You owe me for services rendered under protest and duress and upon a previously filed and served fee schedule.

Let us discuss your big fat out. All I want to see is you promise to serve the Law before you serve the courts or the government, and realize that your fundamental duty is in fact to do so. All you have to do is realize that a Claim of Right served and not disputed does in fact create lawful excuse to disobey court orders and disregard statutes, orders, regulations and bylaws. People who lawfully create and walk that path should not be hindered, harmed or hampered in any way, and if you do hinder, harm or hamper, the Law allows us remedy and we may bring it to bear against you. I sincerely hope we do not have to do so, and I see that all I have to do is get you to agree to serve the Law first and the courts and governments second, and you will been seen as heroes of this Nation, for holding them both to the Law and fulfilling your most fundamental duty of office. It is the people in power who are the most tempted and who can do the most harm, and as such they must bear the greatest watching.

I need you to agree that the courts and government are in fact merely man made organizations manned by men and women who are in fact burdened with basic human frailties. Agree that the Criminal Code does in fact allow for lawful excuse to disregard both courts and legislatures and their bureaucratic offshoots if we act upon a properly filed claim of right. Once we do so, stand ready and firm to refuse to enforce any statute or court order against those who have lawfully created lawful excuse. If you do so, there is no chance of a police state developing in Canada, as you will be good and proper peace officers, serving the Law first, and not the people who sit in higher offices at the expense of justice.

The future police force will not be about tougher, more intimidating and forceful cops, as you will not be dealing with those type of people. It will be about more intelligent, informed and compassionate peace officers, as you will be dealing with people who refuse to be subservient; they will present bills for accepting orders; they will question the meaning of every word; and they will ultimately hold you accountable. This is what is coming and I will tell you how I know. I am working my ass off to achieve it. And, when sacrificing ass, I tend to make my efforts count.

I tried to have caused to be published in The Gazette a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, or as it is called in the Criminal Code of Canada, lawful excuse. As they refuse to print it, I shall be serving you that claim and your officers personally. And on camera. Unless someone in your organization is willing to claim otherwise, the rights I claimed are law and anyone attempting to enforce court orders or statutes against me without making claim first is committing an unprovoked assault and liable for damages and may be defended against.

There is another reason this is coming. We are Canadian. And pay VERY close attention to this part: WE OUT NUMBER YOU VERY BADLY. And as peaceful and well mannered as we can be, wake our ire and you will pay very dearly. We are not sheep; we are peaceful, patient and perhaps slumbering guards dogs, and it will be your greatest woe if we wake to you shearing our freedoms and rights, stealing our wealth or harming our families and country. You will be made to pay. When I say you will pay, I do mean very dearly indeed.

I did not like my sanity being questioned unprofessionally by someone who has no training in the health field and has demonstrated their own brand of questionable beliefs and sanity. Let us ask some very difficult questions, ok? Let us ask: Who is crazier?

Is it those who apply for permission to engage in completely lawful activities without ever even reading the Act under which they are applying?

Is it you for thinking I or any other adult can be governed without consent or for thinking that in a common law jurisdiction ANYONE can give an order to another while wearing a gun and implying the use of force without having to pay a bill? Is it you for thinking a body of words which you do not even understand nor authored grants you unlimited power over me even though to you those words are not understood?

Or is it me, a man with a rather high IQ, who has read and de-constructed these Acts and realized that without my consent they are not law?

I think I am in fact the sanest one of the group, and the one with the gun, pointing to words they do not understand to claim the power a gun provides over the unarmed, are the most dangerous and could easily and may even likely be, psychotic. Psychopaths want power without understanding or accountability. Do you understand section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code? How about Section 337 and Section 39? Those are just some of the sections we can use to control YOU. If you don't understand those Sections, how can you possibly claim to serve the law?

There is coming a large and fundamental change in the relationship between the government and the people, and you will be playing a major role. Like all heroes in any great story, you will face a very difficult decision, and you will be expected to carry the consequences of your decision without moaning or bitching. If you make the wrong decision, you will be seen as the villains in this story, and dealt with as such.
You will serve the courts and the government or you will serve the law. I know you want to do all three, but unfortunately you will have to choose. I do not envy you your position, as you will have to choose who or what you will serve. Will you serve the government and the courts even when those people abandon law and are nothing more than frauds? Or will you serve the law, and hold the courts and the government accountable to it? (More accurately you will be holding the people who we trusted with the courts and the government accountable to the law) What will you do when the people of Canada wake to their fraud and start revoking consent to be represented and governed? Will you hold the people who are employed by the courts and the government accountable to the law, or will you claim law is whatever the fraudsters say it is, because they are the 'government' and the 'courts'? Who will you serve? Who is first? Is it the courts? The government? Or the Law?

I don't blame you alone; I realize that the lawyers have crafted such an incredibly ambiguous and convoluted set of words that it is very hard to determine what our rights and duties are. You people do your best to do your jobs as you see it, and yet what you see is a great big deception, thanks mostly to the lawyers who craft very deceptive rules using a language that only looks like English, but isn't really. The lawyers like this, as it generates conflict and that is where they make their money; by generating and continuing conflict. However, you do walk around with a gun, point to those words and use them to claim authority over your fellow man and you are willing to threaten violence to secure that power over them. Your willingness to blindly accept those words as law over everyone is actually evidence not of your desire to serve, but your desire to command, order and compel without accountability or responsibility. You like your power, eh?

So will you serve the Law when you are called to do so, even if it means your power and authority to command, compel and order is greatly diminished by doing so? Will you accept the role of humble hero? Or will you, like the Nazis of Germany, claim that your authority IS the Law and that all you need to determine the law and your level of authority are your guns?

Who do you serve? We need to know. If you say you serve the Law, we do not need to create and empower a brand new police force specifically equipped and trained to deal with peace officers who fail to serve the Law, which is what you will be doing by attempting to hold any Freeman-on-the-Land to a statutory obligation or order of the court.

There is a new crop of children coming and they are simply ungovernable without good reason. They are driving their parents nuts now and when they get to 18 years of age, they will simply laugh at anyone who tries to claim words they did not author or agree to are their law. The next generation is as different from this generation as we were from our parents. There is a very big shift coming, and you people can fight to contain it, which will result in your destruction, or be wise enough to work with it.
I know an 8 year old child, who will simply refuse any directives from her parents unless they can explain to her the justice of it. She has no fear and refuses to go against her spirit. There are millions of these children out there and you people will be dealing with them. Raised by people who have very good reason to not trust the courts or the government, this next batch of citizens will be holding you supposedly public servants to task.

Especially if I have any say in the matter.

When the next generation reaches maturity, they will know how to create lawful excuse by way of a claim of right published properly and will be completely free of the deception we have laboured under. That is my lawful and honourable goal.

In reviewing the ticket you gave me, I noticed that you put on there a certain number and claimed that I was associated with that number. As I did not show you any document with that number on it, nor did I associate myself with in in anyway, nor did I authorize you to do so, it is clear to me you committed a fraud. Under what authority did you associate me with a number which expired over 5 years ago? You were not acting as my agent, you had no authority to do so, and you did put false information on an official document. That is another crime you committed, either knowingly and willingly, or out of ignorance and negligence. A gross level of negligence.

You committed a fraud and as such you are a criminal. Do you agree, or are you one of those people who thinks that because you are a cop, you are the law and thus can do no wrong?

Here are some questions for you. I will be making a claim against you, swearing out an Affidvit and presenting you through a Notary with my bill. If you fail to respond or fail to respond by way of a sworn Affidavit, a default judgement will be secured allowing me to collect upon my bill. Breaking the law has consequences for you too, you know. And the fact is on the day you stopped me, it is you who broke the law Peppermint Patty, not I.

1.When did I either associate or empower you to associate me with a Drivers License number?
2.When did I claim to know my date of birth? If I did not claim it, then why did you put information on a commercial instrument when the only information you could have possibly used was all hearsay?
3.What would cause you to believe that all automobiles are motor vehicles if not your own gross negligence when Section 3.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act clearly states that an owner must apply for registration and insurance before you can consider it a motor vehicle?
4.When diod I identify myself as a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'?
5.Do you distinguish between British Columbia the geographical area and The Province of British Columbia the legal entity?
6.If you do not distinguish how can you lawfully do your job without being grossly negligent?
7.Why is the fact that I accepted your orders under protest and duress recorded on my electronic recording device but not in your notes when you promised to ensure that you would do your duty and record said protest?
8.How is that not evidence of gross negligence, professional misconduct and fraud?
9.Do you distinguish between statute and Law and if not how can you do your job without being grossly negligent?
10.Are you aware that failure to record my protest and the fact that I was accepting orders under duress is obstruction of justice?
11.Do you acknowledge that Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows anyone to use whatever level of force is required to keep our property if it held under a claim of right even against someone who (because of their own gross negligence and lack of diligence) feels they have the legal right to that property? Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed?
12.Do you acknowledge that Sections 126 and 127 allow for us to completely disregard court orders and statutes, bylaws and regulations if we have lawful excuse to do so, and that according to Section 39 a claim of right is a lawful excuse?
13.Do you accept that if someone like you, by this I mean armed and ignorant, attempts to enforce court orders or statutes or bylaws against someone who has lawful excuse or claim of right then you are committing an unprovoked assault?
14.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada have the right to defend themselves against any unprovoked assaults, even if those doing the assaulting believe they have the legal right to do so?
15.Are you aware the people of Canada do in fact have the rtight to carry firearms if they do so under a claim of right?
16.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada who have secured the right to carry a sidearm by way of a claim of right have the right to use that sidearm to defend themselves against unprovoked assaults, especially those initiated by people who are criminally negligent of the limits of their authority?
17.Are you aware that attempting to enforce a statute against a Freeman-on-the-Land is an unprovoked assault?
18.Do you acknowledge that attempting to associate me with an expired drivers licence number without my consent is an act of fraud and a perversion of justice?
19.Are you aware that under Section 18 of the Notary Act any Notary Public can convene a proper court for the determination of facts prior to the application of the Law?
20.Are you aware that they do have the power to create default judgements which the Sheriffs and their Deputies must accept as lawful under Section 6 of the Sheriffs Act?
21.Are you aware I am convenening just such a court, and therein you will either submit Affidavits which will highlight your fraud and ignorance, or you will do nothing and I will secure by default a court order empowering me or my agents or the Bailiff to seize and sell ANY RCMP VEHICLE in North Vancouver? You do realize the RCMP is a legally nameable and thus suable entity do you not?
22.Are you aware that the Violation Ticket you endorsed is in fact and by definition a bill of exchange?
23.Are you aware that by refusing to give me the original you committed fraud, as it was never properly presented and I am not a legal fiction?
24.Can you explain how a human being, a living breathing flesh and blood man can exist within the legal fiction known as The Province of British Columbia, or do you acknowledge your inability to do so is evidence of your own ignorance and gross negligence?
25.Are you aware gross negligence is equal to fraud?
26.Are you aware that Canada is a common law jurisdiction where the only form of government is a representative one and that representation requires mutual consent?
27.Do you acknowledge that people who deny consent to be represented cannot be lawfully governed, regulated or have statutes applied to them?
28.Are you aware that the peoples right to revoke consent is the greatest tool ever devised to peacefully ensure complete government accountability and compliance with the law?
29.Do you agree the only people who would not accept that we have a right to say no to their rules and governance must be motivated not by justice or law but by desire for control and power and thus are likely the least suitable to have power?
30.Are you aware that it is unlawful to exit Equity in order to latch onto and drag into Equity that which previously existed only at Law? Are you aware that is what you did when you pulled me over?
31.Are you aware that statutes are not laws but are in fact 'Acts' and they only enjoy the force of law with our consent?
32.Are you aware I have already constructively revoked consent and that by your actions you activated my fee schedule, which has also been previously served?
33.Do you agree that by acting with such a high level of gross negligence and ignorance you have brought the RCMP and the administration of justice into disrepute and created liability upon your principals?
34.Do you agree that the people of British Columbia have a right to justice and that when the people entrusted with providing us with that become so tainted by ignorance and corruption we have the right to create a new police force specifically designed not to enforce statutes against the populace, but to enforce the Law against presently existing peace officers?
35.Do you agree that you gave me an order and that in this common law jurisdiction you are now liable for a bill? If not can you explain the function of law which would allow you in this common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount to give an order, not be liable for a bill, and not offend the concept of equality?
36.If you are incapable of answering the above question do you agree you committed a fraud?


So to sum up. I feel I am owed by certain officers and your organization in general. I will foregoe making any demand for payment, recognizing these are difficult and changing times provided you publicly acknowledge by way of a widely published Notice, that you will serve the Law first and hold those in office and sitting in court accountable to it. It is really not mush to ask, and if you do so, you will be seen as heroes of this country. If you refuse to do so, you quickly become quite useless and dangerous to us. Our words gave you your power, our words can take it away.

Will you as peace officers in this common law jurisdiction serve the Law first and foremost and above all else?

1.You will be getting a bill. If you do not pay it I will take lawful measures to collect.
2.The RCMP will be getting a bill. If they do not pay I will take lawful steps to collect.
3.All my property including the 1991 Nissan is held by me under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code and thus I may use force to stop even people like you from taking my property.
4.You now know that attempting to seize my property or enforce statutes or court orders against me is an unprovoked assault.
5.You now know I have every right in the world to defend myself from unprovoked assaults even those committed by ignorant and negligent peace officers.
6.You now know this is not a threat or a challenge or an invitation to violence merely a statement that I have the right to use violence if you try to take my property.
7.You now know that because I have that right, there is no way for you to claim the same right, as to do so would run directly counter to the law, its very purpose and reason for existence, which is peace. Two cannot claim the right to use violence to protect property as that would guarantee conflict. The inclusion of one must exclude the other, and I have the right to use violence to stop you from taking my property thus you do not.
8.You now know I do not consent to governance and I do not exist as a person in The Province of British Columbia and thus I have activated the defences available to us all in Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
9.You now know that unless you can answer the questions I posed you are not suitable to be a peace officer in a common law jurisdiction, as you are too ignorant of the law and too attached to your authority, so attached you do not care about its limits, nature or source.
10.You know that a claim to create a new police force empowered only to arrest people like yourself is in the works, and when that day comes, you can and will be held accountable for your acts of negligence and fraud.
11.You know that a violation ticket matches the definition of a bill of exchange and that by not presenting the original you are completely and solely liable for that bill.
12.You know that failure to distinguish between statutes and law is in fact grossly negligent and that said level of negligence is equal to fraud.
13.You know I think you look just like Peppermint Patty.

There will be other things you will be learning, but I don't want your little head to explode!

This Notice will be published and widely distributed. I do so in the interest of justice and out of love for my country. Not the corporation that has hijacked it or the people who operate without liability through that corporation, but the people of the country who have been so badly deceived and who are held in place subject to that deception by people like yourself, who claim authority to enforce the law without ever even really learning to distinguish between law and statute. And you wonder why we look at you with distrust and apprehension? It is not that we don't like the law; it is that you have abandoned it out of your own fear and lust for power.

Accept that we actually have the right to refuse to be governed and that we have the power to disobey court orders and statutes if we do so properly and you will be serving the law. Fail to do so and we will all know that you are not peace officers at all. You are merely people wearing the uniforms of peace officers and you have hijacked our country. I have seen movies where bank robbers dress like security guards. I think that may be the case here. You wear the uniform, but you do not serve the law at all, you act like mindless unthinking automatons who merely accept blindly the orders of those who are above you and think that because you are accepting orders you must be acting lawfully. You fail to accept that the people above you are bound by the law also, and you allow them to subjugate and enslave us with deception, and you claim you are peace officers even though your actions clearly result in conflict and profit for the lawyers.

I am including a copy of my challenge which I have extended to all peace officers. As some of the things I wish to debate are highlighted by your actions, I think you will be homesteading in the land of dishonour if you do not personally accept my challenge. You wish to make claims against me, why don't you grow a pair and stand publicly to defend your beliefs? Why doesn't one of your principals? There is only one reason: YOU ALL KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND INVOLVED IN UNLAWFUL DECEPTION AND FRAUD.

Or you are afraid to be proved wrong, which means there must be a part of your mind that has some doubt. Are you scared of the Law? Are you scared to debate it with me? Are you scared to make your claims anywhere except the presently existing apparently hijacked courts? You really do not want to take a close look at the source, nature or limits of your authority do you, because if you did you know you would find you have far less than you have been claiming and you have been actively engaged in fraud.

Well, I have much to do in order to lay a foundation allowing us to lawfully create our new police force so we can bring many big men with big guns to bear against people like you. As this process will involve making public claims, I will be sure to serve you a copy of it and allow you an opportunity to dispute the rights claimed within.

I am sorry that this is what must apparently happen, but the law provides us remedy when people like you commit fraud or are otherwise grossly negligent, and you people do not seem inclined to serve the law first and your political masters second. Sorry, but with your ignorance and arrogance you have made this a necessity.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,



Robert-Arthur: Menard
Freeman-on-the-Land
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended by the Grace of God All Property including my body held under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
Lawful Excuse Established as per Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society Justice is Truth in Action

"

Statutory Declaration

A statutory declaration is similar to an affidavit, except it is usually drafted for purposes other than court proceedings. It is a solemn declaration authorized by the Canada Evidence Act and the Ontario Evidence Act and is used to assert the truth of any fact or facts or of any account rendered in writing. The declaration is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and therefore has value as evidence.

20 ways you waste money on your car.

Don't spend a nickel without a darned good reason. Bone up, wise up and don't let anyone lead you astray.
advertisement


Article Tools
E-mail to a friend

Tools Index

Print-friendly version

Site Map

Article Index

Discuss in a Message Board

Digg This


By Des Toups

Cars make us irrational. We call them our babies and lovingly wax them every Saturday -- or we turn up the radio to drown out the sound of a dragging muffler. Either mindset will cost you money, sometimes a lot of it.

Walking the line between obsession and neglect means you never spend a nickel without a good reason -- and good reasons can include spending money on something that’s not broken.

Here, then, are 20 ways you waste money on your car.

Premium gas instead of regular. Buy the cheapest gasoline that doesn’t make your car engine knock. All octane does is prevent knock; a grade higher than the maker of your car recommends is not a “treat.”

3,000-mile oil changes. Manufacturers typically suggest 5,000 miles, 7,500 miles or even longer intervals between oil changes (many car markers now include oil-life monitors that tell you when the oil is dirty -- sometimes as long as 15,000 miles.) There may be two recommendations for oil-change intervals: one for normal driving and one for hard use. If you live in a cold climate, take mostly very short trips, tow a trailer or have a high-revving, high-performance engine, use the more aggressive schedule. If you seldom drive your car, go by the calendar rather than your odometer. Twice a year changes are the minimum.

Taking false economies. Better to replace a timing belt on the manufacturer’s schedule than to have it break somewhere in western Nebraska. Better to pop for snow tires than to ride that low-profile rubber right into a tree.

Using the dealer’s maintenance schedule instead of the factory’s. Of course he thinks you should have a major tune-up every 30,000 miles. Most of the tasks that we generally think of under the heading of “tune-up” are now handled electronically. Stick to the manufacturer’s schedule unless your car is not running well. If your engine doesn't "miss" -- skip a beat or make other odd noises -- don’t change the spark plugs or wires until the manufacturer says so.

Using a dealer for major services. Independent shops almost always will do the same work much cheaper. Call around, owner’s manual in hand, to find out, mindful that the quality of the work is more of a question mark. Some dealers may tell you using outside garages violates the car’s warranty. This is a lie.

Using a dealer for oil changes. Dealers sometimes run dirt-cheap specials, but otherwise you’ll usually find changes cheaper elsewhere. If you’re using an independent shop for the first time, you might inconspicuously mark your old oil filter to make sure it has indeed been changed. And don’t let them talk you into new wiper blades, new air filters or high-priced synthetic oil, unless your car is one of the few high-performance machines built for it.

Not replacing your air filter and wiper blades yourself. Buy them on sale at a discount auto-parts store rather than having a garage or dealer replace them. Replacement is simple for either part, a 5-minute job. A good schedule for new air filters is every other oil change in a dusty climate; elsewhere at least once every 20,000 miles. Treat yourself to new wipers (it’s easiest to buy the whole blade, not the refill) once a year.

Going to any old repair shop. At the very least, make sure it’s ASE-certified (a good housekeeping seal of approval from the nonprofit National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence). From there, look for a well-kept shop with someone who’s willing to answer all your questions. Estimates must include a provision that no extra work will be done without your approval. Drive your car to make sure the problem is fixed before you pay. Pay with a credit card in case there’s a dispute later. Be courteous and pay attention. A good mechanic is hard to find.

Changing your antifreeze every winter. Change it only when a hydrometer suggests it will no longer withstand temperatures 30 degrees below the coldest your area sees in winter. Your dealer or oil-change shop should be happy to check it for free. Every two years is about right. But you also should keep your cooling system happy by running the air conditioner every few weeks in winter to keep it lubricated, checking for puddles underneath the car and replacing belts and hoses before they dry and crack.

Replacing tires when you should be replacing shocks. If your tires are wearing unevenly or peculiarly, your car may be out of alignment or your shocks or struts worn out.

Letting a brake squeal turn into a brake job. Squeal doesn’t necessarily mean you need new rotors or pads; mostly, it’s just annoying. Your first check -- you can probably see your front brakes through the wheels on your car -- is to look at the thickness of the pads. Pads thicker than a quarter-inch are probably fine. If your brakes emit a constant, high-pitched whine and the pads are thinner than a quarter-inch, replace them. If your car shimmies or you feel grinding through the pedal, then your brake rotors need to be turned or replaced.

Not complaining when your warranty claim is rejected. Check Alldata and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if a technical service bulletin (TSB) has been issued about the component in question. Manufacturers often will repair known defects outside the warranty period (sometimes called a secret warranty). It helps if you’ve done your homework and haven’t been a jerk.

Not keeping records. A logbook of every repair done to your car can help you decide if something’s seriously out of whack. Didn’t I just buy new brake pads? With a log and an envelope stuffed with receipts, you’ll know who did the work and when, and whether or not there’s a warranty on the repair. And a service logbook helps at resale time, too.

Buying an extended warranty. Most manufacturers allow you to wait until just before the regular warranty expires to decide. By then you should know whether your car is troublesome enough to require the extended warranty. Most of them aren’t worth the price.

Overinsuring. Never skimp on liability, but why buy collision and comprehensive insurance on a junker you can probably afford to replace? Add your deductible to your yearly bill for collision and comprehensive coverage, then compare that total with the wholesale value of the car. If it’s more than half, reconsider.

Assuming the problem is major. If your car is overheating but you don’t see a busted hose or lots of steam, it might be the $5 thermostat, not your radiator. Or it may be that ominous “check engine” light itself that’s failed, not your alternator.

Not changing the fuel filter. Have it replaced as a part of your maintenance -- every two years or according to the manufacturer’s schedule -- rather than when it becomes clogged with grit, leaving you at the mercy of the nearest garage.

Not knowing how to change a tire. Have you even looked at your spare? Make sure it’s up to snuff and all the parts of your jack are there. Changing a flat yourself is not only cheaper, it’s faster, too.

Not keeping your tires properly inflated. Check them once a month; otherwise, you’re wasting gasoline, risking a blowout and wearing them out more quickly.

Car washes. Ten bucks for long lines and gray water? Nothing shows you care like doing it yourself.

Grand theft auto - The theft of all the cars in America, before they are sold, through a hideous administrative scheme.

From the March 2001 Idaho Observer:

But, what is the most insidious grand theft auto scheme of all time? The theft of all the cars in America, before they are sold, through a hideous administrative scheme. Your car is not your car and here's why.

In an honest world, when you buy something it's yours. The Idaho Constitution, written before there were cars and administrative agencies of government, recognized this property ownership as an inalienable right. That most ignored part of our state Constitution declares in its primal first paragraph the inalienable rights of man:

"All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety."

Given a sufficient personal economy, can we acquire and possess a new car?

We should be living under a system of government where such things are possible but, unfortunately, constitutional government has been relegated to either history or theater. History, because it is no longer adhered to; theater because of the parliamentary, executive and judicial theatrics that are used to maintain an illusion of legitimate, constitutional government.

What has been replacing our original constitutional form of government is the administrative regime. For every regulatable area of life an agency has been commissioned to regulate it. Agencies are those collections of people who have assumed the authority to be all and do all in the name of government. Without the constitutional restraints of the separate branches of government, these unelected bureaucrats can make and enforce their own regulations. Promulgating rules by proposing them, publishing them and then declaring them as law, the kleptocrats of the administrative realms have left few stones unturned (see "Kleptocracy, our government of thieves," The Idaho Observer, July 2000). By these rules, your car is stolen before you can buy it.

How It Works

The Idaho Transportation Department begins to own your car by promulgating administrative rules (IDAPA) which license its maker: "The Department shall issue a manufacturer or distributor license to firms that own the finished vehicle... " (IDAPA 39.02.01.100.01). Then the agency requires the licensing of car dealers: "A dealer license is required in the following situations: Selling or exchanging, or soliciting the sale of five (5) or more vehicles or vessels in any one (1) calendar year even though titled in seller's name; or displaying for sale or exchange, five (5) or more vehicles or vessels at any one (1) time even though titled in the displayer's name; or displaying vehicles or vessels for sale, exchange or consign on property not legally controlled by the owner of the vehicle or vessel" (IDAPA 39.02.02.100).

Not content with licensing the maker and dealer of the new car, the administrators have added another layer of control: "Dealers shall not allow a person to act as a salesperson in their behalf unless such person holds a valid salesperson license containing a current photograph of the salesperson, and the date of expiration of the salesperson's license" (IDAPA 39.02.02.101).

Then, without any act of the legislature, the administrators command that: "Any person who violates this rule is subject to a license suspension or the non-issuance of a license for a period of not less than thirty (30) days and no more than six (6) months" (IDAPA 39.02.02.400.01) and, "Any unlicensed person who violates this rule is subject to penalty under Chapter 16, Title 49, Idaho Code" (IDAPA 39.02.02.400.03).

Now that the kleptocrats in the transportation agency have managed to control the maker, distributor, dealer and the man on the lot with a license, they can now move in for the completion of their grand theft auto scheme: "New vehicles sold in Idaho being titled for the first time must have the title application endorsed by an Idaho-licensed, franchised new vehicle dealer" (IDAPA 39.02.09.100.01) and, "Title applications must be accompanied by a manufacturer's certificate of origin" (IDAPA 39.02.09.100.02).

Cars are made not born. As a thing of commercial value they are given a "title" to evidence the chain of ownership after they are manufactured. Idaho's administrative rules (IDAPA) require every new car sold in the state to have a Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin or Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MCO/MSO): "Licensed Manufacturers may franchise any Idaho dealer; shall display the make, name and chassis identification number approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers on each vehicle; and shall furnish an MCO/MSO for each completed vehicle to dealers" (IDAPA 39.02.01.100.02).

This "MCO" is not just a note from your mom explaining how you got here. The MCO content requirements must include: "Date; Invoice number and document serial numbers; Name of distributor or dealer; Issuing location - city and state; Manufacturer's name and signature of authorized manufacturer's representative; Manufacturer statement - 'I, the undersigned authorized representative of the company, firm or corporation named below, hereby certify that the new vehicle described above is the property of the said company, firm or corporation and is transferred on the above date and under the Invoice Number indicated to the following distributor or dealer'; Year, make, body type, series or model; Vehicle identification number, approved by the American Society of Automotive Engineers; Shipping weight, horsepower (SAE), number of cylinders, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR); and Certification attesting to the first transfer in ordinary trade or commerce: 'It is further certified that this is the first transfer of such new vehicle in ordinary trade and commerce'" (IDAPA 39.02.09.200.01.a-j).

In order to ensure that the title to the vehicles they are about to own is bona fide, the Idaho Transportation Department rulemakers also require security features on the title document: "All "Certificates of Origin" should contain the following nine (9) security features: Paper: Sensitized Security Paper - paper that is reactive to chemicals commonly used to alter documents; Non-Optical Brightener Paper - paper without added optical brighteners which will not fluoresce under ultraviolet light; Engraved Border - a border produced from engraved art work which shall appear on the front of the document; Prismatic - rainbow printing which is used as a deterrent to color copying; and/or Copy Void Pantograph - the word "void" appears when the document is copied; Complex Colors - colors which are developed by using a mixture of two (2) or more of the primary colors (red, yellow or blue) and black if required; Erasable Fluorescent Background Inks - fluoresces under ultraviolet light and reacts to any attempt to erase in such a manner as to be immediately detectable; Background Security Design - a repetitious design consisting of a pattern which hinders counterfeiting efforts; Microline - a line of small alpha characters in capitol letters which requires a magnifying glass to read; Consecutively Numbered - documents that contain a number which is consecutively numbered for control purposes; Security Thread - with or without watermark; and/or Intaglio Print - with or without latent image" (IDAPA 39.02.09.201.01).

Hopefully you have made it through all that administrative mumbo jumbo and are ready for the next two important questions: What is really going on here and why would this agency require such a complex document if it is only going to be transferred from the manufacturer to the dealer to them? First, the Transportation Department kleptocrats do not issue any "title," they steal it.


How?

"The Department shall issue a Certificate of Title on any motor vehicle if the applicant can show proper documentation of ownership..." (IDAPA 39.02.12.100) and, "Title applications must be accompanied by a manufacturer's certificate of origin" (IDAPA 39.02.09.100.02).

That complex document with all the content requirements and security features, the MCO, is THE title. These administrative rules require the licensed dealer to send in THE title with the "title application." The real title, The MCO, is then "held" by the kleptocrats, never to be seen again.

The kleptocrats then issue a "Certificate of Title"-key word: "Certificate." The Certificate of Title merely certifies that there was a title. Most people mistakenly think that the Certificate of Title issued by the state is the title.

Using a scheme that is common across our nation, the licensed, enfranchised car dealers are compelled to surrender the real title or MCO to the state. Why? In the language of commercial code, the MCO is an "instrument" of title "issued" by the "maker" (the car manufacturer) and "negotiated" (through the licensed, enfranchised dealer) to the "holder" (the one who ends up with the "instrument" which conveys "possessory rights" to the car and its "proceeds"-in this case, the state). Under commercial code, before the "instrument" issued by the "maker," can convey rights to the Transportation Department as a "holder in due course," the instrument must "not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration" or "an unauthorized signature..." (Idaho Code 28-3-302(1).

That is why the kleptocrats want the MCO to be such a detailed security instrument-it conveys the legal and commercial "rights" to "your" car-before you can "own" it.

(For a really confusing read that exemplifies why lawyers should never be allowed anywhere near the legislature, see all of Idaho Code, Title 28).

"Certificate of Title?"

A Certificate of Title conveys the equitable use of the car. You may even transfer that use to another person by signing over the Certificate of Title to them, but only relative to your equity interest.

You could think of it as a conditional use permit, which compels your compliance with license, registration, insurance and all other laws governing the use of the now state owned property. That's why state employed officers can pull you over for any "infraction," seemingly in violation of your constitutional rights. The license plates evidence the state as "holder in due course" of the car-the owner-and the officer is the owner's agent regulating the use of the owner's property. No one in this country is allowed to own a vehicle and travel freely anymore. We must first obtain permission to use state-owned property.

That is how administrative government uses commercial process to steal the rights to "your" car and control your use of it through compelled registration and licensure schemes.

How To Import A Car Into Canada From The United States

The light of truth in maxims.

Regarding Justice:

All are equal under the Law.
A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
Claims made without accountability are void.
Might does not make right.
Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.
Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.
While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.
You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions.
A laborer is worthy of his hire.
Thou shalt not steal.
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Regarding Truth:

Truth stands supreme.
Truth affects but cannot be affected.
Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.
Truth will out.
An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.
Thou shall not bear false witness.
Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.

Regarding Sovereignty:

It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable rights.
The created cannot be greater than its creator.
A man can give to another no more than he himself has.
A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man's rights.
The People are Sovereign.
In America the government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.

Regarding Power and Authority:

We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.

Vitamin E linked to lung cancer.

Taking high doses of vitamin E supplements can increase the risk of lung cancer, research suggests.

The US study of 77,000 people found taking 400 milligrams per day long-term increased cancer risk by 28% - with smokers at particular risk.

It follows warnings about similar risks of excessive beta-carotene use.

Writing in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, an expert said people should get their vitamins from fruit and veg.

Dr Tim Byers, from the University of Colorado, said a healthy, balanced diet meant people took in a whole range of beneficial nutrients and minerals, which might help to reduce cancer risk.

The researchers followed people aged between 50 and 76 for four years and looked at their average daily use of vitamin C and folic acid, and vitamin E supplements.

Over the course of the study, 521 people developed lung cancer.

Smoking, family history and age all had unsurprisingly strong links to cancer risk.

And while neither vitamin C or folic acid use had any effect on lung cancer risk, vitamin E use did.

The researchers extrapolated their findings, and concluded that over a decade, there was an additional 7% increase in risk for every 100 milligrams taken per day.

The vitamin E trend was most prominent among smokers, but was not confined to them.

Vitamin E is known to be an antioxidant - protecting cells from molecules called free radicals.

But the US researchers speculate that, in high doses, it may also act as a pro-oxidant - causing oxidation and therefore damage to cells.

'Toxic effects'

Dr Christopher Slatore of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the study, said: "In contrast to the often assumed benefits or at least lack of harm, supplemental vitamin E was associated with a small increased risk of lung cancer.

"Future studies may focus on other components of fruits and vegetables that may explain the decreased risk of cancer that has been associated with fruit and vegetables.

"Meanwhile, our results should prompt clinicians to counsel patients that these supplements are unlikely to reduce the risk of lung cancer and may be detrimental."

But Henry Scowcroft, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "The jury's still very much out on whether vitamin and mineral supplements can affect cancer risk.

"Some studies suggest a benefit, but many others show no effect and some, like this one, suggest they may even increase risk."

He added: "Research repeatedly shows that a healthy, balanced diet can reduce your risk of some cancers while giving you all the vitamins you need.

"Quitting smoking remains the most effective way to avoid many cancers. There's no diet, or vitamin supplement, that could ever counter the toxic effects of cigarette smoke."

In 2002 a Finnish study of 29,000 male smokers found taking beta-carotene - which is converted into vitamin A in the body - was linked to an 18% increased risk of developing lung cancer

Online library prtr

Get To Know The Major Central Banks

U.S. Federal Reserve System (The Fed)

Structure - The Federal Reserve is probably the most influential central bank in the world. With the U.S. dollar being on the other side of approximately 90% of all currency transactions, the Fed's sway has a sweeping effect on the valuation of many currencies. The group within the Fed that decides on interest rates is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which consists of seven governors of the Federal Reserve Board plus five presidents of the 12 district reserve banks.

Mandate - Long-term price stability and sustainable growth

Frequency of Meeting - Eight times a year

Key Policy Official - Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Following former chairman Alan Greenspan's retirement in January 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush tapped Bernanke to head the Federal Reserve, given his four years of experience on the Fed board of governors. His views differ from Greenspan's in that he believes in inflation targeting and printing money to avoid deflation. The historic change of power at the U.S. central bank marks the first time in two decades that an academic, who may focus more on mathematical and econometric models, is chairing the Fed.

European Central Bank (ECB)

Structure - The European Central Bank was established in 1999. The governing council of the ECB is the group that decides on changes to monetary policy. The council consists of the six members of the executive board of the ECB, plus the governors of all the national central banks from the 12 euro area countries. As a central bank, the ECB does not like surprises. Therefore, whenever it plans on making a change to interest rates, it will generally give the market ample notice by warning of an impending move through comments to the press.

Mandate - Price stability and sustainable growth. However, unlike the Fed, the ECB strives to maintain the annual growth in consumer prices below 2%. As an export dependent economy, the ECB also has a vested interest in preventing against excess strength in its currency because this poses a risk to its export market.

Frequency of Meeting - Bi-weekly, but policy decisions are generally only made at meetings where there is an accompanying press conference, and those happen 11 times a year.

Key Policy Official - Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank. Prior to succeeding Wim Duisenberg as ECB president in November 2003, Trichet was the president of Bank of France. He has a reputation for being a cautious and forthright banker, though many criticize his slow response to European economic stagnation and high unemployment. Typically seen as a hawk with a bias toward making preemptive moves to ward off inflation, Trichet has the huge responsibility of managing the monetary policy of 12 nations.

Bank of England (BoE)

Structure - The monetary policy committee of the Bank of England is a nine-member committee consisting of a governor, two deputy governors, two executive directors and four outside experts. The BoE, under the leadership of Mervyn King, is frequently touted as one of the most effective central banks.

Mandate - To maintain monetary and financial stability. The BoE's monetary policy mandate is to keep prices stable and to maintain confidence in the currency. To accomplish this, the central bank has an inflation target of 2%. If prices breach that level, the central bank will look to curb inflation, while a level far below 2% will prompt the central bank to take measures to boost inflation.

Frequency of Meeting - Monthly

Key Policy Official - Mervyn A. King, governor of the Bank of England. Prior to assuming the role of BoE governor on June 30, 2003, King was a professor at the London School of Economics. Initially joining the BoE in 1990, he became an executive director and chief economist in March 1991 and was promoted to deputy governor in 1997. King's "Goldilocks" monetary policy, which is neither too restrictive nor too accommodative, has propelled the U.K.'s economy into its longest streak of uninterrupted growth in 200 years.

Bank of Japan (BoJ)

Structure - The Bank of Japan's monetary policy committee consists of the BoJ governor, two deputy governors and six other members. Because Japan is very dependent on exports, the BoJ has an even more active interest than the ECB does in preventing an excessively strong currency. The central bank has been known to come into the open market to artificially weaken its currency by selling it against U.S. dollars and euros. The BoJ is also extremely vocal when it feels concerned about excess currency volatility and strength.

Mandate - To maintain price stability and to ensure stability of the financial system, which makes inflation the central bank's top focus.

Frequency of Meeting - Once or twice a month

Key Policy Official - Toshihiko Fukui, governor of Bank of Japan. A lifelong bureaucrat, Fukui joined the bank of Japan in 1958 and held various posts before succeeding Masaru Hayami as governor on March 19, 2003. Although Fukui has a reputation for being conservative, he has implemented new policies geared toward greater transparency, such as publishing BoJ economic outlooks and detailed minutes of policy meetings. On March 9, 2006, he ended the five-year-old ultra-loose monetary policy and prepared for a return to conventional rate targeting.

Swiss National Bank (SNB)

Structure - The Swiss National Bank has a three-person committee that makes decisions on interest rates. Unlike most other central banks, the SNB determines the interest rate band rather than a specific target rate. Like Japan and the euro zone, Switzerland is also very export dependent, which means that the SNB also does not have an interest in seeing its currency become too strong. Therefore, its general bias is to be more conservative with rate hikes.

Mandate - To ensure price stability while taking the economic situation into account

Frequency of Meeting - Quarterly

Key Policy Official - Jean-Pierre Roth, chairman of the Swiss National Bank. Roth has spent most of his professional career at the SNB, starting in 1979; he assumed the role of chairman of the governing board in 2001. Roth is also a member of the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements and is governor of the International Monetary Fund for Switzerland.

Bank of Canada (BoC)

Structure - Monetary policy decisions within the Bank of Canada are made by a consensus vote by Governing Council, which consists of the Bank of Canada governor, the senior deputy governor and four deputy governors.

Mandate - Maintaining the integrity and value of the currency. The central bank has an inflation target of 1-3%, and it has done a good job of keeping inflation within that band since 1998.

Frequency of Meeting - Eight times a year

Key Policy Official - David Dodge, governor of the Bank of Canada. Princeton-educated Dodge held various public offices and taught at a few universities throughout the U.S. and Canada before taking office as the central bank governor in 2001. He is known for being frank and open about his beliefs, and has also been credited for carefully balancing inflation with currency appreciation. Mark Carney is set to replace Dodge in February 2008.

Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)

Structure - The Reserve Bank of Australia's monetary policy committee consists of the central bank governor, the deputy governor, the secretary to the treasurer and six independent members appointed by the government.

Mandate - To ensure stability of currency, maintenance of full employment and economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. The central bank has an inflation target of 2-3% per year.

Frequency of Meeting - Eleven times a year, usually on the first Tuesday of each month (with the exception of January)


Key Policy Official - Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Stevens has been with the RBA since 1980. Prior to succeeding Ian Macfarlane, Stevens held a variety of positions at the RBA, from head of the Economic Analysis Department to deputy governor in December 2001. As with his predecessor, he is expected to keep a close eye on inflation, which is expected to be a challenge as the Australian economy continues to boom.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)

Structure - Unlike other central banks, decision-making power on monetary policy ultimately rests with the central bank governor.

Mandate - To maintain price stability and to avoid instability in output, interest rates and exchange rates. The RBNZ has an inflation target of 1.5%. It focuses hard on this target, because failure to meet it could result in the dismissal of the governor of the RBNZ.

Frequency of Meeting - Eight times a year

Key Policy Official - Alan Bollard, governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Before his appointment as governor of the RBNZ in September 2002, Bollard served as secretary of the treasury, chairman of the NZ Commerce Commission and director of the NZ Institute of Economic Research. Known as a strong inflation hawk with extensive economic training, Bollard has condemned large current account deficits and raised New Zealand interest rates to a high level of 8.25%. (For further reading, see Current Account Deficits and Understanding The Current Account In The Balance Of Payments.)