The further below commentary goes hand in glove with this video:
PFR - EP8: The "Con" of the
Constitution
From: legal_reality@earthlink.net
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 5/11/2016 9:30:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: About "transportation" -- From the front lines
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 5/11/2016 9:30:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: About "transportation" -- From the front lines
11 May A.D. 2016 [GMT]
This author has been blessed by having several path-finder clients ready, willing, and able to learn the details and apply them where it matters most -- in court. It's bold to engage litigation; it's super-bold to do so pro se. It takes the super-bold to blaze these particular paths, because we're curbing a system that has no intention of being curbed.
What does Pharaoh say when the people say, "Let me go!"? He just laughs. Well, he's not laughing so much these days.
The main correction this author has learned he's had to make is best illustrated by correcting this author's favorite analogy for "transportation." The catch-all analogy for "transportation" has been that of the cabbie on his way home with this "Not for Hire" sign going. Is he good for the speeding ticket?
In the "actual use" theory applied by this author from the beginning, the answer to that question is No. "Vehicle" is defined by language that looks to "actual use." Algebraically, where there's no "transportation," there's no "vehicle," thus also no "motor vehicle," no "driving," and no "operating." All of these terms of semantics depend directly on "transportation."
This "actual use" perspective seemed to be 100% confirmed by the relatively recent Lozman ruling. In fact, in the Lozman ruling, the Supreme Court launched "coulda, shoulda, woulda" directly into the sun. There's none of this "coulda, shoulda, woulda" been used for "transportation" purposes. Either the "actual use" was that of "transportation," or it wasn't. In Lozman's case, it wasn't. There was no "actual use" of his floating house for "transportation" purposes.
In application of the "actual use" perspective, we were getting a substantially high success rate, but it wasn't 100%. And, that's a problem. If it's not 100%, then there's another fact to be marshaled to have the law apply and produce a pro-defense ruling. One appellate court opted to corrupt the definition of "transportation," so that it purports to include "travel," despite statutes in that same state that very specifically distinguish between 'transportation" and "travel." An appellate court in a different STATE opted to corrupt its traditional method of calculating when the judgment is "final" for purposes of the time period by which to initiate the appeal. In other words, rather that address the semantics and the reality, they've opted to corrupt the language of law.
Welcome to our present legal reality. The "law" is not intended to be clear but rather to be obfuscated. The more obfuscation, the better. "Babylon," as in "babble on," has everything to do, definitionally, with "confusion."
Back to the top with a clean slate, applying the reality one more time, we know that "transportation" regulations apply under only two circumstances: (1) one is actually engaged in "transportation," i.e., removing someone or something from one place to another for hire (which hire is recognized in "this state," i.e., "funny money" or "dollars"); or (2) one has agreed commercially to be regulated as if one were actually engaged in "transportation."
In all the application matters, we've not only proved "not in transportation" but also "no consent" from the time of the stop forward, and there are some beautiful trial Records proving both "not in transportation" and "no consent." Where those few cases that were not dismissed were subjected to the crucible of trial, and where the appellate courts confirmed the "civil" nature of these "transportation" matters but provided no relief, there was only one option remaining: the necessary commercial consent pre-dated the "transportation" stop.
We've known from the beginning that the cars with tags are owned "in trust" to the benefit of the relevant STATE agency. In TEXAS, that agency has changed a couple of times, and it's now the Department of Motor Vehicles. Each STATE has its own Department and Division/etc. that issues the "Certificates of Title." The long and the short is that what this system is using as the act of "commercial consent" that pre-dates the stop is that threshold ownership scam by which the title of the car is split (put into trust, splitting the "legal" and the "equitable" titles, which is the entire point and purpose of a trust, namely the split the title).
The confirmation comes in the Lozman ruling. How could we possibly have applied Lozman so completely and yet continue to run into an apparent anti-Lozman barrier?
A curiosity in that ruling is the Court's recitation of the case style in the trial court. It's not "CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH v. M/V 'SUCH AND SUCH.'" Instead, it's "CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH v. (a multi-word description of Lozman's floating house)." How many times was that case style read, and how many times did the significance of it not scream from the page (audibly)?
What this case style is teaching us is that Lozman never put his floating house into trust for the benefit of some STATE or national agency or other. He never "registered" it as a "marine vessel." Thanks to some expert research assistance into the background on that floating house, we learned that the floating house was built from scratch. Thus, there was never a "title" document to be put into trust by some "be a good Prussian and do as you're told" process. In the analogy of the car, there was no MSO to be send to this or that STATE agency so that the (mere) "Certificate of Title" could be returned to the owner/purchaser.
Thus, yes, if we want to build our own cars from scratch, we'd avoid these "transportation" racket/scam entanglements.
Is there a solution if we happen already to have fallen into the system-wide scam set up to be used against us. Sure.
What is it? In general, it's the mechanism by which those threshold trust interests are "merged" back into a full title.
Since litigation may be involved in the final resolution of these (types of) matters, this author is still reluctant to get into many more details. It's still the situation that whether through ignorance or agents provocateur, that which "works" is very subject to intellectual corruption so as to be made to appear not to "work."
There's one particular matter that already bears out this perspective, that the "commercial consent" being used against us starts at the time we buy the car. Two tickets, almost a year apart. One trial/appeal/review matter is pending before the high court of that STATE; one matter is still in trial. The one matter still in trial has recently been dismissed. Each of these involve the same car, and what's been established in the review phase of that first matter is the effective termination of the trust.
For STATE to have standing, STATE has to prove that there's a viable "case or controversy" at all phases of the dispute. Thus, where we prove, even in the review phase, that there is no continuing "case or controversy," then the matter should be vacated or dismissed as moot. If no continuing trust, then no continuing "case or controversy."
The trial matter, the second of the two, involving that same car is the trial matter recently dismissed. We're presently awaiting results from the high court regarding that first matter.
Key, then, about "transportation" matters, is this. There are two and only two ways for anyone to bring himself/herself within the "transportation" enforcement scheme: (1) engage in "transportation," by getting paid, in "dollars," for removing someone or something from one place to another or (2) agree to be so regulated. And, key about that agreement is that it doesn't happen at the time of the stop but rather at the time the car is purchased, where that purchase doesn't involve the transfer of "full title." If it's a new car purchase, and if what the new owner gets is a "Certificate of Title," then, Congratulations to that new owner, they've just "volunteered" into the "transportation" regulatory scheme. If it's a used car, and if what the new owner gets is a "Certificate of Title," then, Congratulations, they, too, have just volunteered into the "transportation" regulatory scheme.
Is there a way to end those trusts? Yes. Of course there is. One agreement to get into trouble; another (agreement or act) to get back out. Again, that process will depend on each STATE's statutes relevant to this, and each STATE may have a different agency (many have a similarly-titled agency) with which to engage the discussion. Since litigation is likely involved, it's a matter that requires more than just a conceptual understanding to bring about the end result.
And, as we open this gate, such that it'll never be closed, again, we can expect some changes in how the STATEs "respond" to as to slow down our assertion of our "right not to contract" so as to regain some measure of distance between ourselves and this "Beast" system. What we need to do "today" may not be the same as what we'll need to do "tomorrow."
All that in mind, yes, we're at the solution-level of this matter. And, it may be that we've got plenty more litigation ahead to overcome what may be a deliberate absence in training of the front-line law-enforcement officers tasked with implementing this part of the bankers' games being played to our disadvantage.
Pharaoh isn't laughing so much anymore. But, neither is he just rolling over, yet. It's a study, and it's a debate, and those interested in getting loose from the "transportation" enforcement mechanism may certainly do so, where they're ready, willing, and able to learn the concepts necessary to accomplish that task.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
This author has been blessed by having several path-finder clients ready, willing, and able to learn the details and apply them where it matters most -- in court. It's bold to engage litigation; it's super-bold to do so pro se. It takes the super-bold to blaze these particular paths, because we're curbing a system that has no intention of being curbed.
What does Pharaoh say when the people say, "Let me go!"? He just laughs. Well, he's not laughing so much these days.
The main correction this author has learned he's had to make is best illustrated by correcting this author's favorite analogy for "transportation." The catch-all analogy for "transportation" has been that of the cabbie on his way home with this "Not for Hire" sign going. Is he good for the speeding ticket?
In the "actual use" theory applied by this author from the beginning, the answer to that question is No. "Vehicle" is defined by language that looks to "actual use." Algebraically, where there's no "transportation," there's no "vehicle," thus also no "motor vehicle," no "driving," and no "operating." All of these terms of semantics depend directly on "transportation."
This "actual use" perspective seemed to be 100% confirmed by the relatively recent Lozman ruling. In fact, in the Lozman ruling, the Supreme Court launched "coulda, shoulda, woulda" directly into the sun. There's none of this "coulda, shoulda, woulda" been used for "transportation" purposes. Either the "actual use" was that of "transportation," or it wasn't. In Lozman's case, it wasn't. There was no "actual use" of his floating house for "transportation" purposes.
In application of the "actual use" perspective, we were getting a substantially high success rate, but it wasn't 100%. And, that's a problem. If it's not 100%, then there's another fact to be marshaled to have the law apply and produce a pro-defense ruling. One appellate court opted to corrupt the definition of "transportation," so that it purports to include "travel," despite statutes in that same state that very specifically distinguish between 'transportation" and "travel." An appellate court in a different STATE opted to corrupt its traditional method of calculating when the judgment is "final" for purposes of the time period by which to initiate the appeal. In other words, rather that address the semantics and the reality, they've opted to corrupt the language of law.
Welcome to our present legal reality. The "law" is not intended to be clear but rather to be obfuscated. The more obfuscation, the better. "Babylon," as in "babble on," has everything to do, definitionally, with "confusion."
Back to the top with a clean slate, applying the reality one more time, we know that "transportation" regulations apply under only two circumstances: (1) one is actually engaged in "transportation," i.e., removing someone or something from one place to another for hire (which hire is recognized in "this state," i.e., "funny money" or "dollars"); or (2) one has agreed commercially to be regulated as if one were actually engaged in "transportation."
In all the application matters, we've not only proved "not in transportation" but also "no consent" from the time of the stop forward, and there are some beautiful trial Records proving both "not in transportation" and "no consent." Where those few cases that were not dismissed were subjected to the crucible of trial, and where the appellate courts confirmed the "civil" nature of these "transportation" matters but provided no relief, there was only one option remaining: the necessary commercial consent pre-dated the "transportation" stop.
We've known from the beginning that the cars with tags are owned "in trust" to the benefit of the relevant STATE agency. In TEXAS, that agency has changed a couple of times, and it's now the Department of Motor Vehicles. Each STATE has its own Department and Division/etc. that issues the "Certificates of Title." The long and the short is that what this system is using as the act of "commercial consent" that pre-dates the stop is that threshold ownership scam by which the title of the car is split (put into trust, splitting the "legal" and the "equitable" titles, which is the entire point and purpose of a trust, namely the split the title).
The confirmation comes in the Lozman ruling. How could we possibly have applied Lozman so completely and yet continue to run into an apparent anti-Lozman barrier?
A curiosity in that ruling is the Court's recitation of the case style in the trial court. It's not "CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH v. M/V 'SUCH AND SUCH.'" Instead, it's "CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH v. (a multi-word description of Lozman's floating house)." How many times was that case style read, and how many times did the significance of it not scream from the page (audibly)?
What this case style is teaching us is that Lozman never put his floating house into trust for the benefit of some STATE or national agency or other. He never "registered" it as a "marine vessel." Thanks to some expert research assistance into the background on that floating house, we learned that the floating house was built from scratch. Thus, there was never a "title" document to be put into trust by some "be a good Prussian and do as you're told" process. In the analogy of the car, there was no MSO to be send to this or that STATE agency so that the (mere) "Certificate of Title" could be returned to the owner/purchaser.
Thus, yes, if we want to build our own cars from scratch, we'd avoid these "transportation" racket/scam entanglements.
Is there a solution if we happen already to have fallen into the system-wide scam set up to be used against us. Sure.
What is it? In general, it's the mechanism by which those threshold trust interests are "merged" back into a full title.
Since litigation may be involved in the final resolution of these (types of) matters, this author is still reluctant to get into many more details. It's still the situation that whether through ignorance or agents provocateur, that which "works" is very subject to intellectual corruption so as to be made to appear not to "work."
There's one particular matter that already bears out this perspective, that the "commercial consent" being used against us starts at the time we buy the car. Two tickets, almost a year apart. One trial/appeal/review matter is pending before the high court of that STATE; one matter is still in trial. The one matter still in trial has recently been dismissed. Each of these involve the same car, and what's been established in the review phase of that first matter is the effective termination of the trust.
For STATE to have standing, STATE has to prove that there's a viable "case or controversy" at all phases of the dispute. Thus, where we prove, even in the review phase, that there is no continuing "case or controversy," then the matter should be vacated or dismissed as moot. If no continuing trust, then no continuing "case or controversy."
The trial matter, the second of the two, involving that same car is the trial matter recently dismissed. We're presently awaiting results from the high court regarding that first matter.
Key, then, about "transportation" matters, is this. There are two and only two ways for anyone to bring himself/herself within the "transportation" enforcement scheme: (1) engage in "transportation," by getting paid, in "dollars," for removing someone or something from one place to another or (2) agree to be so regulated. And, key about that agreement is that it doesn't happen at the time of the stop but rather at the time the car is purchased, where that purchase doesn't involve the transfer of "full title." If it's a new car purchase, and if what the new owner gets is a "Certificate of Title," then, Congratulations to that new owner, they've just "volunteered" into the "transportation" regulatory scheme. If it's a used car, and if what the new owner gets is a "Certificate of Title," then, Congratulations, they, too, have just volunteered into the "transportation" regulatory scheme.
Is there a way to end those trusts? Yes. Of course there is. One agreement to get into trouble; another (agreement or act) to get back out. Again, that process will depend on each STATE's statutes relevant to this, and each STATE may have a different agency (many have a similarly-titled agency) with which to engage the discussion. Since litigation is likely involved, it's a matter that requires more than just a conceptual understanding to bring about the end result.
And, as we open this gate, such that it'll never be closed, again, we can expect some changes in how the STATEs "respond" to as to slow down our assertion of our "right not to contract" so as to regain some measure of distance between ourselves and this "Beast" system. What we need to do "today" may not be the same as what we'll need to do "tomorrow."
All that in mind, yes, we're at the solution-level of this matter. And, it may be that we've got plenty more litigation ahead to overcome what may be a deliberate absence in training of the front-line law-enforcement officers tasked with implementing this part of the bankers' games being played to our disadvantage.
Pharaoh isn't laughing so much anymore. But, neither is he just rolling over, yet. It's a study, and it's a debate, and those interested in getting loose from the "transportation" enforcement mechanism may certainly do so, where they're ready, willing, and able to learn the concepts necessary to accomplish that task.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
2 comments:
I come here and criticize many of your postings as being totally useless. Finally, you have posted an article about a fellow human being actually being in the fight and putting himself out there that I can connect with; nstead of sitting around wasting valuable time writing long useless posts and liens and claiming he (she) has never been attacked by the feds. As I pointed out that was because SHE never accomplished anything to hurt the system. Like myself, I'm betting this real patriot has been arrested many times and made many tests to try to find the TRUTH. He is obviously not an attention seeker as SHE is, he is all about accomplishing positive. Everyone here should look toward his example as how to make a difference, not the FAKE one.
seems one might consider obtaining a private notarized Bill of Sale when privately trading for a "used" vehicle, using nickel COIN designated on the financial instrument for "payment" thereof -NOT fiat FRN "dollars"! Obtaining a signed off "Certificate of Title" but deliberately NOT executing same into a "new NAME" with the STATE should be OK, imo, to retain private ownership absent PUBLIC registration, which transfers ownership to STATE, w/o knowledge of most wo/men realizing same.
Post a Comment