By the time 1942 rolls around most people are being craftily convinced that they owe "income" taxes. The fact that the "Victory Tax Act" never applied to them in the first place and expired in 1944 anyway doesn't seem to register. By 1954, Uncle Sam is going after those people who really didn't owe those taxes. The IRS asks for and gets permission to use the SSN as an identifier for federal employees only but it isn't long before they extend its use to everybody. It really doesn't matter because thanks to that "driver's license", THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE.

By the mid 1970's the many states are now requiring a photograph because it isn't enough that THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. You're still just as honest and law abiding as back in 1903, but now they want a permanent record of what you look like, just in case...

By 1980, the NCIC computer system is humming away. Just in case you MIGHT commit a crime, and since all computer systems need a universal identifying number, the states are now putting that SSN on guess what? That "driver's" license. You don't have to carry that SSN card around but you do have to carry that license. You might forget that SSN number but you can't forget something you're required to carry. The states are running a parallel computer system for the time being, but the point is that now, all they need is your name and not only do they know what you look like but everybody KNOWS WHERE YOU LIVE.

Well, there's still a problem. It takes time to mail or fax a photograph to confirm who your license (and it's number) says you are. It isn’t enough that you are who you say you are, you have to prove it. Actually, the state has to be able to verify - with their records - who you say you are or you must be lying. Technology to the rescue. Digital photographs and digital signatures. Can't have any stray animals wandering around...gotta make sure their rightful owners know where they are in case they need them...

I hate to keep bringing up these problems all the time but what about those animals that don't travel by car? Well, they all work, don't they? Let's make sure that they get assigned their ear tag when they get put into service. Y’know, a few animals don’t take care of their offspring the way the state thinks they should. And by the way, for the rest of them, how convenient that they all carry around that ear tag when they travel.

Listen up, folks. We the People aren't going to stop being tracked like the animals they think we are until you get rid of that ear tag. That "driver's license." That "motor vehicle registration." Every time I read another headline like "Experts Decry Proposal as a National ID Card" I break out laughing. YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE and it isn’t going to go away until YOU GET RID OF THAT LICENSE.

Until then, remember, THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE.

What joke?

YOU WERE NEVER REQUIRED TO HAVE A LICENSE OR REGISTRATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[Uh-ohhhhh, reality challenge #2]

C:\>

ABORT, RETRY, FAIL?

Let’s start talking about the reality that government doesn’t want you to wake up to.

Who determines what type of government we have?

Who determines what type of Law we live under?

Who determines how many branches of government we have and what powers they possess and exercise?

What instrument specifies governmental authority and who delegated it to them?

The answers to those questions ought to be self-evident but alas, the logical conclusions to be drawn from them seem to escape most Americans.

What is the order of Law?

1. The Great Legislator of the Universe*

2. The unwritten people’s common law of immemorial antiquity

3. The federal Constitution

4. The state Constitution

*Optional, your mileage may vary.

So who are the holders of inherent political power? THE PEOPLE ARE.

What authority can the people delegate to their "substitutes and agents?" ONLY THAT AUTHORITY THAT THE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS THEMSELVES POSSESS. By the way, for those people brainwashed by law schools (and/or any other communist/socialist political indoctrination centers) into thinking that somehow a group of individual citizens possess more authority over the unalienable rights of a single citizen (as if collecting in a group and reciting incantations about "compelling state interest" bestows magical powers...), those theories were examined and REJECTED by the founding fathers.  

Can your "substitutes and agents" claim more authority than you have to give them? In other words, can an agent claim more authority than the principle had to give him in the first place?

NO!

Who created the Law and the courts in this country? The people did. How did they do it? By and through their Constitutions. Is it possible for you to delegate away your right to determine what type of law and what type of court you are subject to?

NO!

Ok, let’s say that I get elected to some petty position of authority. I get the brilliant idea that global warming is a serious problem and declare that the people’s right to a cool globe is a "public purpose" and I make the determination that the exhalation of CO₂ significantly enhances global warming. I decide that all breathers are henceforth required to register their breathing apparatus with the Breathing Commission that I just created as a division of the Department of Usurpation that I previously created, and breathers must now obtain a license to breath. Furthermore, I have just appointed my brother-in-law to be the administrative head of the Breathing Commission with authority to see that my intent is carried out. Individuals failing to register their breathing apparatus and persons breathing without a Breather’s License may be summoned into the Breather’s Court I created to fine and otherwise punish unlicensed breathing.

Ridiculous? What do you think they did with driving in 1903?

Let’s look at what just happened.

I, the parasite politician, decided to enhance my "headcount" by creating a Department of Usurpation. Notice that the People didn’t create that department by and through their Constitution, I did. Then, to give my fellow parasites something to do, I took a "natural, essential, and unalienable right" of my fellow citizens and converted it into a privilege by legislative (and/or executive) fiat and created another pack of parasites called the Breathing Commission, naming my brother-in-law to be the leader of the pack.

I, not the people, (I, the parasite politician) created a position called the Registrar of Breathing (my brother-in-law sitting in another position not created by the people by and through their Constitution) with law-making power because he makes regulations. Even though he’s supposedly only able to create regulations that "implement the will of" the legiparasites, I included a catch-all provision in the statutes that allow him to make anything that I didn’t think of illegal whenever he wants to. He also gets to create regulations that go way beyond anything I ever mentioned in the law I wrote because he’s only "working out the details" of the implementation. Don’t complain about having to fill in the space on the form requiring you recite the characteristics of your genitalia because who are you going to complain to? Me?

I also created a state administered, privately run (by my other brother-in-law) breathers inspection system, since some people exhale more CO2 than others and they have to be brought into compliance. Some people even exhale smoke and we can’t have that... So I vested the Registrar of Breathing with the alleged authority to stop and inspect breathers and make sure that the breathers inspection stations are run properly. In other words, I vested him with law enforcement authority.

I then proceeded to give him adjudicatory authority to determine who is and who is not in compliance with the breathing laws I spewed and the breathing regulations that the Registrar of Breathing spewed after he hauled the violator into a Breather’s Administrative Hearing. If the subject breather feels he’s aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar of Breathing, he can take his complaint to a judge (actually, another administrative hearing officer) at the Breather’s Court that I (not the people, I) created and to which I delegated the authority to impose fines for improper, unregistered, or uninsured breathing. 

Note that the presiding officer (judge) at the Breathing Court is acting on a delegation of authority from the Registrar of Breathing, who is acting on a delegation of authority from me, the parasite politician, who is acting on a delegation of authority from NOBODY!

Can you spell b-o-g-u-s? I knew you could....

Let’s sum this up again:

1. Individual citizens can’t convert the "natural, essential, and unalienable right[s]" of their fellow citizens into privileges and neither can their "substitutes and agents."

2. The People decide what elements or agencies of their government they are subject to, not the agents that created those agencies!

3. No Citizen is subject to a "fourth branch of government" that exercises all of the powers of the three branches of government that the people specified by and through their Constitution.

4. No Citizen is subject to a legislatively created court or a court hearing matters of administrative law under a delegation from the legislature unless there is a nexus connecting them with the administrative jurisdiction of the agency in question AND they were engaged in a regulatable activity in the first place. Citizens are only subject to a judicial power court of general jurisdiction that they created and defined in their Constitutions.

Example: Snow-plowing public roads under contract with the state is a situation where there is a clearly defined nexus between the Citizen and the administrative agency tasked with regulating contractual agreements concerning snow plowing of public roads under contract with the state. The Citizen would only be brought under the administrative jurisdiction of that agency while actually performing the snow plowing. Even though the state could require a driver’s license while actually snow plowing public roads, the administrative jurisdiction of the state would not extend to driving home in the Citizen’s private automobile after he/she finished the snow plowing. Driving a school bus full of kids would be another example.

5. Legal sophistry (..."compelling state interest...) is no substitute for political and jurisdictional facts and there must be political facts before there can be law or jurisdictional facts..

What is the bottom line here? Any court hearing matters of administrative law is prima facie sitting as a quasi-judicial court of administrative jurisdiction acting in a corpora ficta capacity by delegation of the legislature, is sitting in a ministerial capacity, and is providing a summary proceeding; it is not sitting as a judicial power court of general jurisdiction providing full and unabridged plenary proceedings pursuant from a delegation from the people by and through their Constitution. As such, this court has NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and cannot have in personam jurisdiction without first having subject matter jurisdiction.

The problem is that they presume to have jurisdiction and you don’t rebut the presumption.

This principle doesn’t only apply to traffic cases folks, it applies wherever some parasite is claiming you violated some administrative law. Think of the possibilities... In Massachusetts in 1900 there was one, three inch thick volume of law and 90% of that was administrative law. Go to your state archives and check it out. Today that law stretches for 12 feet - how much of that do you suppose is administrative law?

The Flat Earth people are going to say "You're advocating anarchy! You can't just allow people to do whatever they want!!!" BULL. I'm not advocating anarchy, nor am I claiming that government can't regulate or even prohibit certain activities. For example, some little toadie in town government decides that there should be no motor vehicle traffic on main street during the parade. Fine. This little regulation doesn't abrogate your right of travel, it simply states that if you run your car through the middle of the parade, you're going to be looking at a common law charge of disturbing the peace. That's a far cry from requiring you to bow down and grovel before some extortionist parasite before you take your car out of the driveway under threat of deadly force if you don't. The difference is that in the first instance, where you exercise that fundamental right is temporarily modified, in the latter, that fundamental right has been made illegal. Further, I am the last person in the world to advocate driving or doing anything that recklessly endangers anybody else - that means doing 65 down Main Street is a no-no according to the common law. The problem with the bogus administrative approach is that it is completely arbitrary,  presumes you're guilty before the fact, and there is almost always a complete lack of anyone that has actually suffered any damages  - among other things.

Aren’t we supposed to have a three-branch Republic? Aren’t those branches supposed to be separate and not exercise the authorities of the others? Do you see how they’ve used the presumption that you’re subject to administrative law to subvert your Constitutionally protected rights? King George operated a one-branch government, how much freedom do you think we’re going to have left if we don’t wake up and stop this crap? NOW!

I realize that this is a pretty big challenge to the generally accepted reality so I’m going to show how the legal wizards have pulled off this con and then I’m going to discuss the proof to back it up.

The primary method of converting rights into privileges so they can be taxed is "Legalese." So let’s take a look at Legalese using a word that everybody understands (maybe...).

Curiously, the language they speak sounds very much like English but more often than not, a word used in Legalese does not have the same meaning as its English counterpart! In fact, they have developed a giant dictionary that parallels the English dictionary to explain all of the often arcane translations for a word commonly understood in English. Even accomplished students of this language find that the definitions and usage in this language are constantly shifting like the desert sands. At times, the meanings of its words slip in and out of English, their use in context may or may not determine whether the English or Legalese definition applies, and the proper definition to infer seems to roughly correlate to whether there is money or power at issue, although this is not always the case. In addition to there being similarities with English definitions, there is a bewildering array of levels of commonality or priority of common usage and understanding which also seems to vary depending on whether there is money or power at issue.

The Land of Legalese is also the only place on Earth where the word being defined can be defined by the word being defined.

Unfortunately, while there are definitions to be found, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules regarding usage or construction. The man or woman attempting to speak Legalese in the land where it is used is often required to retain the services of a professional interpreter. This practice carries considerable risk, in that as mentioned earlier, they are by default placing themselves at the mercy of parasites, con-men, and extortionists.

As an example in the study of this challenging and rewarding language, I'd like to examine the word "person." The English dictionary defines the word this way

person

1 human, individual - sometimes used in combination esp. by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>

2 a character or part in or as if in a play guise

3 a one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians

b the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures

4 a archaic bodily appearance

b the body of a human being; also the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>

5 the personality of a human being self

6 one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

7 reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

per son hood \-'hud\ noun

in person in one's bodily presence

Notice how in the English definition, six out of seven of definitions relate to men and women. Note also the order of priority in the object of the definition. Five definitions later we get to something that isn't a man or a woman. It's not a stretch to presume that in common English usage the definition of "person" means a man or woman to most people.

Now let's look at Legalese. Author's notes are in brackets ([ ]).

Person. In general usage,

[It is not clear whether the phrase "in general usage" refers to general usage of Legalese or English]

a human being (i.e. natural person),

[It is not clear whether the term "natural person" must be used to describe a human being]

though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers See e.g. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 152; Uniform Partnership Act. § 2. I Bankruptcy Code.

"Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit 11 U.S.C.A § 101.

Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, Ala., 470 G.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 1685, 84 L.Ed.2d 751. The term "persons" in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation Alamo Fence Co of Houston v U.S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. In corporate law, "person" includes individual and entity. Rev.Model Bus.Corp.Act, § 1.40.

It would appear that in Legalese, the term "person" means

a) a "natural person" [the word "natural" is not defined in Legalese]

b) an "individual,"

c) labor organizations,

d) partnerships,

e) associations,

f) corporations,

g) legal representatives,

h) trustees,

i) trustees in bankruptcy,

j) receivers,

k) not necessarily governmental units,

or

l) an entity.

In English, only two of these terms might be construed to mean human beings; i.e., "natural person" and "individual." Since "natural" is not defined in Legalese, the reader must draw his own conclusions. Let's look at the word "individual" as defined in the Legalese dictionary.

Notice that the term "individual" is a measure of quantity. So the question to ask is "...an individual ...WHAT?"

So anyway, it would appear that an "individual" is:

a) a single "person" - meaning any one or more of the ten different definitions listed above that do not mean "human being"

b) "very commonly" (whether that means in English or Legalese is not known) but not inherently or primarily, a "private" or "natural person"

The reader should note that the words "include(s)" and "including" are used extensively in the Legalese language. This is a powerful and often frustrating term in Legalese. Primarily, it means "to shut in," or to "keep within" (as in the English word "only") and is restrictive, but may have EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE meaning (as in the English word and phrase "and" or "in addition to,") and becomes expansive depending on the context in which it is used. In most cases, this opposite usage will be revealed in cases where it is politically expedient or if there is money or power to be extracted from the unwitting.

Since it is apparent from the previous paragraph that words in Legalese may mean exactly the opposite of what they mean in English, or Legalese (usually depending on whether the reader has something of value that he may be relieved of), surely some generalizations may be made regarding wording in Legalese by a careful statistical analysis of usage. For this the author will turn to the Taxxachusetts General Laws.

A careful study of the usage of the word "person" where it is specifically defined in Taxxachusetts General Laws revealed the following interesting statistics.

1) The term "person" was specifically defined in twenty-two (22) different places.

2) Of the twenty-two (22) instances where the word "person" was defined, in only eleven (11) instances was the phrase "natural person" in the list of terms defining the word. In other words, half of the time that the term "person" was defined, the term "person" clearly did not apply to a single human being.

3) In those twenty-two (22) different instances where the term "person" was defined, it was defined a total of fifty-three (53) different ways.

4) The fifty-three different definitions were used a total of one hundred and fourteen (114) times.

5) Of the one hundred and fourteen (114) times those definitions were used,

a) the term "natural person" was used eleven (11) times,

b) the term "individual" was used one (1) time

c) the remaining forty-one (41) different terms used to define "person" clearly did not refer to a single human being.

6) As a percentage of the fifty-three (53) different definitions, "natural person" represents 1.89 percent.

7) As a percentage of total usage, "natural person" represents 11/114 or 9.6 percent.

8) The terms "man/woman" were not used,

What conclusions can we draw from this analysis?

1) There is one term that can always reasonably be construed to mean a single human being and that phrase is "natural person."

2) In the cases where the term "person" is specifically defined, only half of the time does the term mean a "natural person."

3) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined, as a function of total usage, the statistical likelihood that the term "person" means a single human being is no more than ten (10) percent.

4) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined, the statistical likelihood that the language is referring to a single human being is slightly less than two (2) percent.

The art of being a legal weasel involves sliding in and out of Webster’s and Black’s Law Dictionary when it’s convenient for the state without telling you which dictionary they're using.

Consider the following examples of Legalese usage where the term "person" is NOT specifically defined and determine whether they apply to you as a single human being, not acting in a corporate capacity.

a) "Any person who..."

b) "The individual required...shall..."

c) "Persons subject to this statute may apply for a license to..."

d) "Every person required under this chapter to...shall..."

e) "Violators are subject to..."

 Hint:

The author hopes you have enjoyed this brief foray into the exciting world of Legalese although the reader may want to consider their financial situation before engaging in an exhaustive study.

Documentation of analysis are available in MS Excel format.

You’re entitled to due process of law, right? Not when you enter an administrative, kangaroo, star chamber court. "You have been charged with violating Chapter 90, Section 10 of the Taxachusetts General Laws! How do you plead?" TIME OUT!

Let’s take a look at the authority of the police who are the first people you meet in the traffic scam. Mind you, the police are no more aware of what they’re doing than the average person they’re arresting. In fact, if they knew how the system was designed by the judges to protect the judges and let the officer twist in the wind if necessary, most police officers would be out looking for another career. So let it be clear that I don’t have a beef with the police per se.

What lawful authority do the police have? They can serve criminal process and have common law authority to keep the peace and disperse unruly mobs. The part about examining all persons abroad has to meet the criteria of articulable suspicion, and in the case of arrest, of well founded probable cause that a common law crime has or is about to be committed. Note that this law dates to 1851 - not too many people cruising around in Ford Escorts back then. So the question is, is your traffic stop being conducted under the actual authority granted the police by you, the People?

Well if you answered no, you get a prize. What authority are they acting under when they pull you over for no good reason known to the common law of the people? A presumption that there is a nexus in evidence between you and the administrative agency tasked with enforcement of (administrative) traffic law and therefore you fall under the administrative jurisdiction of a legislatively created agency - and that you’re engaged in a regulatable activity under that nexus. A pretty tall presumption considering you’re just going from here to there.

Because you didn’t immediately object to being detained and ask if you were free to leave, when he/she asked you to produce your license and registration, you have been silently deemed to have consented to being detained. Being detained against your will and without your consent is an arrest - all of the fabricated, legal sophistry that tries to call it something else notwithstanding. Arrest without well-founded probable cause that a crime in the nature of a felony or crime in the nature of a misdemeanor breach of the peace known to the common law has been committed is false arrest. But since you silently consented to being arrested by not clearly objecting, you can’t make that claim.

So the police officer decides to arrest you for the crime of operating without a license, operating an unregistered vehicle, and operating an uninsured vehicle. In Taxxachusetts, those are allegedly "crimes" - not crimes known to the common law, but supposedly crimes none the less.

If a police officer or citizen conducts an arrest for murder, they don’t have to cite some obscure chapter and section to back it up, it’s a common law crime to murder somebody and the charge can simply be "Murder." Since the traffic stop for the broken license plate light and subsequent arrest for no license, registration, or insurance wasn’t a common law crime, the officer is going to write out some "Uniform Traffic Citations" and stuff them in your pocket while he’s hauling you to the clink to get processed by the legal meat grinder. There’s a big problem with those citations.

If I punch you in the nose and you go down to the police station to complain about it, you have to swear under oath or penalty of perjury that I did in fact, punch you in the nose. That’s where the phrase "swear out a complaint" comes from. Actually what you’re swearing on is an application for a criminal complaint to issue out of a court. Now, you would think that your right of due process demands that the police officer swear out an application for a complaint against you - with a sworn and signed complaint issued from the appropriate court to follow. But when you look at the citations, you see that where the police officer signs his name, there are a bunch of check boxes and he’s checked off a couple of them. The first one he checked is "Criminal Application." That means that this citation is the application for a criminal complaint to issue out of a court against you. The second box he checked is right above his name and it says "Officer Certifies." That sounds official doesn’t it? Unfortunately, a certification made by a public officer is "made a fact by operation of law but is not necessarily sworn to." See Black’s Law dictionary. In other words, the officer said "Well, I guess he did it, sort of...maybe...unless somebody else says otherwise..." If the officer had sworn under penalty of perjury that he knew for a fact that you were really subject to those administrative laws and that you broke them, he’d be committing felony perjury. Now we can’t have that can we?

As if that wasn’t bad enough, what did they actually charge you with violating? Your right of due process demands that you be informed of the charges specifically stating the duly enacted laws you supposedly violated. (Remember, this isn’t a common law crime we’re talking about.) What is a "duly enacted law?"

Constitution for Massachusetts, Part the Second, Chapter VI, Article VIII says:

This isn’t some hazy subject that constitutional scholars argue over, it’s fact. Every duly enacted law must start with the enacting clause or it isn’t law - at least it isn’t a public law that you have to worry about.

Prior to 1920, all of the duly enacted laws were listed by the year, the chapter, and the section they were given as they were passed by the legislature. These were usually called the "Acts and Resolves" or the "Statutes At Large." So in 1903, the first driver’s license law was an act of the legislature of 1903, contained in Chapter 473 - and that’s what you would have been charged with violating; St. 1903 Ch. 473 s.10.

In 1920 however, the legislature decided that it was too inconvenient to keep track of all of those laws by date, chapter, and section, along with the tables showing amendments so they hired a bunch of private attorneys to generate what amounts to a "cheat sheet" (or an index) indicating that somewhere there’s a traffic law that may or may not say such and such and we’re going to organize this "cheat sheet" with nice, neat, new chapter and section headings that don’t list the date and stay consistently organized from year to year. Unfortunately for you, they also don’t include THE ENACTING CLAUSE like the good old law books did. The generation of this "cheat sheet" wasn’t an official act of the legislature, it was a "private" act of the legislature for their convenience.

It’s debatable whether the "new and improved" "Massachusetts General Laws" even constitute proper evidence of the law. They most certainly aren’t the DULY ENACTED LAW that your right of due process demands you be charged with breaking. In other states they call them "...Revised Codes," "...Revised Statutes," or some other snow-job title, but like a Federal Reserve Note, they aren’t "Federal" and there’s no "Reserve."

This shenanigan is actually old hat because they've pulled this a few times before:

1836,
1860,
1882,
1901-2,
1916-20 <--- here's where you find out what really goes on...(remember Animal Farm?)

Credits to Bob Ricker for digging this stuff out of the State Archives.

So what were you actually charged with violating when the citation and subsequent complaint specified M.G.L. Ch. 90, s.10? At best you were charged with violating mere evidence of law, and at worst you were violating the legislature’s private "cheat sheet." You certainly weren’t informed of the duly enacted law that you allegedly violated that your right of due process demands! Now, I know what law you should have been charged with breaking, even if it still didn't apply to you - but I'll keep that to myself for the time being...

By the way, for those smarty pants that find it chic to think that the common law doesn’t exist anymore, in addition to the above, look in your state Constitution for something like this:

Your substitutes and agents don’t have the authority to abolish the people’s unwritten common law of immemorial antiquity no matter how many ways they dance around the subject and claim that they do.

Anyway, now you’ve made it to the point where you stand before some glorified paper-pusher called a "Magistrate Clerk" - who for all the law he knows, ought to be asking you "Would you like fries with your conviction?"

Since you didn’t know you should have been objecting to all of this "bovine scatology" all along, he’s asking you how you plead to the charges. Right now you should be entering a direct challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court because:

1) The officer in question had no well-founded probable cause known to the common law to stop and subsequently arrest you,

2) You have not been informed of, and there is nothing in evidence to identify the duly enacted laws that you have supposedly violated,

3) The officer failed to cite a properly promulgated regulation that would give force and effect to the alleged statute that you supposedly violated which clearly states the intent of the legislature and specifically enumerates a particular class of parties or things subject to the regulation of which you or your car are prima facie a member of,

4) There is no properly verified charging instrument in evidence,

5) There is nothing in evidence indicating that there is a nexus between you and the jurisdiction of the administrative agency tasked with administration and enforcement of the statute in question AND that you were engaged in a regulatable activity subject to the administrative jurisdiction of that agency at the point you were arrested,

and on, and on, and on, and on...

Since the legally retarded clerk isn’t going to want to hear it, he’s going to enter a plea of "not guilty" for you - which should be over your objection to the court acting as the court and the defense over the objections of the defense - but no matter.

A few days later, they get around to giving you a copy of the official complaint that issued out of the court and surprise, surprise, there are a few things going on in that document that you can’t understand.

The first thing you notice is that it says at the top that the complaining party has "sworn on oath" that you did ...

Now you may have seen people get administered "the oath" a million times on TV but are the words of that oath anywhere in the Taxxachusetts law? NO! So excuse me for asking a dumb question but how do I know what "oath" the complaining party took if it isn’t written down anywhere? For all I know, the complaining party swore to tell a lie, the whole lie, and nothing but a lie. There isn’t a proper jurat at the bottom of the complaint saying something to the effect that the "undersigned states under pains and penalties of perjury..." etc., etc. But maybe there’s a witness to the administration of the oath and he can tell me what these two guys said to each other...we’ll see.

Then, you notice that the officer making the complaint is the Police Chief for the town you got arrested in. Excuse me, but doesn’t your right of due process demand that the person making a complaint against you actually sign the complaint? Don’t you have a right to face your accuser? Isn’t the arresting officer the guy making the complaint against you? Where does the Police Chief get off accusing you of doing something he didn’t witness and has no direct, first hand knowledge of?

Get a load of this crapola:

"A sound administrative procedure?" The mere "formality...?" My right of due process is a mere "formality?" Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! Well, I haven’t gotten around to pulling that case from 1858 yet, but in every single instance where some case law cite purports to contradict the Constitution, and I dug up and read the case, I found that there were additional circumstances that made it appear that the Constitutional requirement could be gotten around but those circumstances actually obviated the requirement of strict construction.

For example: In one particular case that claimed that a warrant didn’t have to be signed by a judge before being served, contrary to the explicit direction of the Constitution, a conservation officer was suspected of burglarizing the summer homes of people on Cape Cod. The State Police officer investigating the case found that the conservation officer ran a small antiques shack and met the suspect at the shack. The State Police officer had a warrant with him but it hadn’t been signed by the first justice of the court as required because only a lower-level court clerk was available at the time. When the State Police officer arrived and could identify property reported as stolen in the front window of the shack, he asked the suspect if he could go inside and look around (without mentioning that he was conducting an investigation and without mentioning the search warrant.) The suspect volunteered to let him in which invalidated the need for the warrant in the first place. Later the suspect claimed that the search was invalid because the warrant was unsigned when the State Police officer found the stolen goods. After the usual amount of prevaricating, the court claimed the warrant could be signed later, as long as it was signed at one point or another.

What a joke! The damned warrant wasn’t even necessary after the idiot suspect invited the State Police officer in! What difference did it make that the warrant was unsigned when it wasn’t necessary and wasn’t even used? The court used a case where the requirement of strict construction of the Constitution wasn’t even necessary to claim that strict construction of the Constitution wasn’t necessary!

They simply used the case as a cover for claiming that they could do something that in fact they couldn’t.

In other words, in every single instance where I have pulled a case that claimed the courts could do something that smelled like a rat, I found out that it was just more snow-job. "It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but it ain’t a duck!" They may dance and shuffle and recite incantations around the Constitution but it still says what it means and means what it says --- those cases that claim otherwise always seem to evaporate when you read them. I expect the 1858 case will be no different.

So anyway, back to our complaint. At the bottom you find a slot for the signature of the complainant, the signature of the clerk magistrate who supposedly administered the "oath" to the complainant, and a slot for the signature of the witness to the administration of the oath and the signing of the complaint. But guess what? The witness’ name is TYPED in, not signed. Anytime someone claims to have witnessed an event, he/she has to SIGN their name or make their mark. A typed name is WORTHLESS. There’s another fly in this ointment. The Constitution and the law requires that any process issuing from a court must bear the "test" (signature) of the first justice of the court. Guess whose name is typed into that "witness" slot? Right ! The name of the first justice!

So let’s recap how this bogus traffic complaint upholds your right of due process.

1. An unstated oath was allegedly administered.

2. There was no witness to the administration of the oath.

3. The complaint was signed by a third party reciting hearsay testimony.

4. There was no witness to the signing of the complaint.

5. There was no signature of the First Justice of the Court as required by the law (since 1822) and the Constitution (since day one).

6. The complaint included the other "civil" charges "set forth for here for procedural purposes only." (So I guess it’s ok to start mixing jurisdictions on a supposedly "criminal" complaint.)

Now, if I start suing everybody in sight for coming after me under color of process, under color of office, under color of law, y’know what the first justice is going to say?

"Do you see my signature on that thing? You may come after me for negligence but you’re not going to get me for perjury! I’ll let the cop and the clerk twist in the wind if necessary but don’t look at me, I wasn’t so stupid as to sign that complaint!"

How many cops do you think would be so enthusiastic about writing traffic tickets if they knew their neck was on the chopping block while the judge skates off into the sunset?

Contrary to popular belief, I have absolute proof that at least ONE First Justice of a District Court of Taxxachusetts is capable of signing his own name.

What’s really funny is that we’re talking as if this was a judicial power court! IT’S NOT. It’s an administrative tribunal and you have been charged with a violation of an administrative law. What does the Constitution have to do with that? They could have had a monkey sign the complaint if it had wanted to - as long as there was a regulation or some judge that said so. See what I mean about presumptions?

It gets worse, folks. Yes, you heard right, it gets worse.

Besides being a tool for a tyrannical government to "finger" people with, the traffic racket is a sheep-shearing conveyor belt. In 1986, Taxxachusetts (ever on the lookout for new and improved methods of extortion...) decided to crank the fines for traffic violations from $50 to $100. Insiders in the "law enforcement" community told the parasites that this would affect "production" since even de-sensitized traffic cops had a hard time with that kind of shakedown. Not to mention the fact that this level of extortion would meet increased public resistance in court manifesting itself as a gumming up of the conveyor belt.

Prior to 1986 traffic offenses were treated as misdemeanors but since the protection money the state demanded was low enough, very few challenges were made. Not after 1986, though. All of sudden Citizens were showing up in court demanding things like due process and constitutionally protected rights. Translation: the conveyor belt was gumming up.

Remember now, that the People determine what type of law they are subject to. Well not according to the Taxxachusetts state legislature. They came up with the brilliant strategy of changing the nature of the previously "criminal" offenses to be "civil" in nature. Criminal charges and procedure must adhere to a very strict set of rules where the burden of proof is on the state and the bipolar concepts of "guilty" or "innocent" apply. Discovery, subpoenaing of witnesses...we’re talking serious conveyor belt stoppages.

On the other hand, civil cases deal in "responsibility" with a much lower threshold for an adjudicatory determination and wider latitude for extortion. Unfortunately for the state, civil cases can get quite messy when the "mark" is determined not to be had easily - assuming the state rules of civil procedure apply. This was a job for LAWYERMAN!

The lawyer-politicians directed that the Taxxachusetts Supreme Judicial Court come up with what turned out to be...

MASS. TRIAL COURT RULE VII. UNIFORM RULE ON CIVIL MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTIONS

This baby is a gem. Check out the goodies in this one:

"This rule shall be construed and applied to secure the prompt and informal determination of civil motor vehicle infractions."

[Yeah, informal, yeah, that’s the ticket!]

"The rules of evidence shall not apply at such hearings. The evidence shall be given such weight as the judge or clerk-magistrate deems appropriate."

[...Pay the clerk on your way out]

"At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge or clerk-magistrate shall announce a finding and disposition of "not responsible" or "responsible". The judge or clerk-magistrate shall enter a finding of "not responsible" if he determines that it was not shown, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the alleged violator committed the infraction charged. If the judge or magistrate determines by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the alleged violator did commit the infraction charged, he shall enter a finding of "responsible" and impose an assessment which shall be within the range permitted by law and in accordance with any applicable guidelines that have been promulgated pursuant to law. No other disposition shall be permitted. No disposition may be suspended and no costs shall be assessed, except that after a finding of "responsible" the judge or clerk-magistrate may continue the proceeding for a limited time to permit the violator to pay the assessment imposed."

[...shot while attempting to escape...]

"...prompt and informal determination"?

"The rules of evidence shall not apply at such hearings."

"No other disposition shall be permitted."

What all of this actually looks like is 801 CMR 1.02 Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure [Informal hearing rules - before administrative agencies]

In reality, since they don’t even adhere to those rules, what you have here is an admission that they’ve dragged you into a summary, ad hoc, star-chamber proceeding the Nazi’s would have been proud of.

It gets worse, folks but I’ll leave it alone for now.

Presumptions. The traffic scam is based on them. Almost all of them are unstated and unknown to the victim of them. Most of the time they take the form of "silent judicial notice" even though the courts acting on them aren’t acting in a judicial capacity. Let’s look at how easy it is to fall into the presumptive trap.

Example: The police ask you what your address is. You dutifully respond, "123 Anystreet, Anytown, Anystate, USA."

Wrong. The address you use was assigned to the mail box (which belongs to the U.S.P.S. as soon as you put it up, by the way...) by the U.S.P.S. for their convenience. It isn’t your address, it’s their address. It belongs to them and they assigned it to their mail box. They let you use their address assigned to their mailbox to receive mail. If it was your address, you could change it, right? The town may claim that they adopted the use of the U.S.P.S. address so they know where to send the fire truck, but did you vote on it? So what are you doing when you tell that officer what your address is? What you might have said is "I live in a yellow house on Anystreet in the town of Anytown, Anystate and across the street from the house where I live is a U.S.P.S. mailbox with the number 123 on it."

Example: The police ask you "What is your DATE OF BIRTH." You respond July 4, 1776.

First of all, if you’re reading this, your birthday occurred in the past. Your D.O.B. (their parlance) is not an "is," it’s a "was." The police officer asking you that question is conducting a criminal investigation or he wouldn’t be asking it. Making misrepresentations to a police officer in the conduct of a criminal investigation is a crime. Anything you say to him might just as well be testimony since that’s what it’s going to amount to when it gets recited in court after he arrests you. What can you testify to in court? Things that you have direct, first-hand knowledge of as facts. Can you testify under penalty of perjury that you witnessed your own birth? No... So your mother told you your birthday was July 4, 1776. She’s a third party and what you have for evidence of your birthday is hearsay. Assuming she was conscious during the blessed event, she, the doctor who delivered you, and any other actual witnesses are the only parties competent to testify as to the date you were born on. Maybe you have a "certified" copy of your birth certificate where the doctor stated the time and date of your delivery. Does that document constitute your first-hand knowledge of the facts of your birth or is it merely hearsay evidence provided by a third party? So what are you doing when you tell that officer what your birthday is?

Y’know that little metal plate riveted to your dashboard with the long string of numbers and letters on it? It’s called the Vehicle Identification Number. Ever try and change that number? I wouldn’t recommend it. All states claim it’s a crime to alter or remove it. Of course that prohibition is administrative law and doesn’t really apply to you but if it was your car that was attached to that plate with the numbers and letters on it you could change it, right?

A lot of people joke that "It’s not my car, it’s the Banks’ car!" Actually, it’s supposedly your car but the bank has a security interest in it. That means that if you don’t pay the loan they gave you, they can reclaim the collateral (the car) that you pledged as security for the loan.

Ok, so we’ve established that you "own" the car but somebody else also has an "interest" in it. Here’s the Legalese effect at work.

The first issue that I ought to address is the issue of this traffic incident involving what you think is your property - "your" car. Are you sure it's your car? You bought the car brand spanking new from your local dealer and you have paid off the bank note. What a nice feeling it was to get that envelope in the mail with that "Certificate of Title" in it marked "PAID." Ahhhhhhhh......it's Miller time...... But before you get too comfortable and break out the potato chips, let's look at what happened over the last 48 months. When you bought the car what did you do? You wrote a check for the downpayment. When the car arrived at the dealer's lot, you wanted to drive it NOW so you let the dealer title it with the state. Naturally, since you still owe a lot of money on that car, the bank got the "Certificate of Title" until you paid off the loan. STOP. Think about what just happened.

You cut a downpayment check to be "paid" in Federal Reserve Notes. Since I started talking about the Constitution let's examine what FRN's are. First I'll tell you what they aren't. They aren't money. They may be "legal tender for all debts public and private" but they aren't money. Debts can only be paid with money; lawful money, i.e., gold and silver coins of the united States of America per 12 USC 152. So you didn't really PAY off that loan, you discharged that debt with a negotiable instrument of debt, albeit "legal tender," but definitely not lawful money. So you didn't really pay that debt, you discharged it. If you didn't really pay for it, how can you claim you own it? Technically, you can. If you got a common law bill of sale from the seller, the fact that he took almost worthless pieces of paper (they're not actually worthless, you could use them for toilet paper although I wouldn't recommend it) in exchange for a valuable piece of equipment is his problem. An exchange of something physical took place and the seller said so on a common law bill of sale.

The next thing you did was to let the dealer "title" it since you wanted to drive that new car NOW - not later. What exactly happens there? The dealer took the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO), which was the first piece of paper constituting legal evidence of right, title, and interest in the car and he gave it to the state! Think about that. Here you are, authorizing the dealer to take direct evidence of "ownership" (notice I didn't say "Title") associated with that car and give it to the government. What do they give the dealer in return for that document evidencing right, title, and interest in the car? They give him a "certificate of title" - evidence that maybe a title exists - not a document showing that you have the actual absolute right, title, and interest in that car, only evidence that maybe a title exists. Huh? You got a piece of paper that has your name on it, THEIR names on it, and the word "owner" is next to your name. You own it, right? To quote the eminent propagandist, McGlaughlin, WRONNNNNNNG!!! There are a dozen different ways to legally define "ownership" but the one we're concerned with here involves the bare legal ownership in the form of a "possessory right." You may have physical possession of the car but that doesn't necessarily mean you "own" it the way you think of the concept of ownership.

Think about what I said concerning the "certificate" merely being evidence that maybe a title exists. When you let the dealer "register" that car he ground out an application, handed it to the state, they recorded that you possessed a car of a certain type in their records, and he was in turn, handed a piece of paper that constituted evidence that the car had been registered. Where did the "registration" actually occur? On the application entered into the state's computer or on the piece of paper they handed the dealer indicating that the car had been registered? The registration exists in the possession of the state; your dealer was only handed evidence that a registration exists.

Now back to that "Certificate of Title." What is actually the true title for that car? That’s a good question. Some say the "Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin" is, others say the MCO represents right, title, and interest in the car, and interest in a title if one exists. The point is that the MCO is an actual attested legal document prepared by the manufacturer stating that they built the car from "scratch," and that they retain right, title, and interest in the car until they sell it. When they do sell it, typically to the dealer, the dealer gets the MCO and a bill of sale. So the only thing necessary for the manufacturer to transfer all right, title, and interest in that car is a transfer of the car, the MCO, and a bill of sale. If you’re sharp, you’ll notice that the state’s name isn’t on any of those documents.

The Flat Earth types will squawk that the MCO is a worthless piece of paper that the state needs the first time the car is titled so nobody can claim that a rebuilt wreck is a new car. If the MCO is only an indication of what type of car it is, what year it was made, or other sundry descriptive information, why would the state be so concerned with receiving and RETAINING it? Once the car is initially "titled" by the state, it would be impossible for anyone to claim that it was a new car again. Wouldn't simply showing the state the MCO once suffice? After they title it the first time, there's a permanent record that it WAS a new car on that day, will never be a new car again, and that record is presently available at any time, anywhere in the country. Why are they so concerned that it be printed on archival grade, fraud resistant, security-featured document paper - the kind normally reserved for legal documents like stock certificates, and titles to homes and land? If the MCO is just a piece of paper showing that the car was made in Detroit and imported to Taxxachussets - with no other significance, - why do you have to sign it and why doesn’t the dealer just forward it to the state as soon as the car is sold?

Why do they insist on the TAKING and RETAINING of the ORIGINAL? Why wouldn't a court certified copy do? Isn't the point of the MCO to simply to show that the car that was delivered to you was new and that you own it? If you march down to a court reporter/notary public/judge with the dealer and have the reporter/authority certify the fact that the MSO that you hold is the original, have the dealer affirm under oath in an affidavit that he delivered an original to you, and you then bring a certified copy of that MCO to the Department of Motor Vehicles to "title" it, they won't take it. Why? Because they need the ORIGINAL to effect a transfer of right, title, and interest in the car. They then issue you a "Certificate of Title" which merely evidences that a transfer took place and that while they now hold right, title, and interest in the car, you have bare legal possession of the car. There’s more to it than just that.

What's the first thing you let that dealer do after he got "your" car titled? He registered it. What's the big deal with that? You have to understand how registration affects the status of property and you have to understand the concept of trusts. A trust is a situation where property is held by a legal entity for the "benefit" of another. That property may or may not be in the physical possession of a trustee of the trust. No matter who has physical possession of the property, it is subject to the terms of the trust. Anyone having physical possession of trust assets has a fiduciary duty to maintain or improve the assets of that trust for the benefit of whoever holds beneficial interest in the trust. You're probably wondering where I'm going with all of this...It all comes back to the Constitution - bear with me.

The terms of a trust are its "constitution." While the American Constitution involves Law, the terms of a trust involve private law or contract law.

What is required to create a trust? Look at Massachusetts law and then look in the law in your state and you'll find something very similar.

There are three things necessary for the creation of the trust described in law below.

1. A written transfer of the property to another "person" containing a description of the property.

2. The names of at least three parties involved

a. creator/transferor of the trust
b. custodial trustee of the trust
c. beneficiary of the trust

3. An evidencing of the creation of a trust by a registration of the property.

Check it out:

[from Massachusetts Jurisprudence]

Now, if you read the paragraph above carefully you would have noticed two terms that are particularly important. "Person" and "individual." Neither of those words sound like the government do they? WRONNNNNNG!!! Both of those words can be used to identify a legal fiction such as state government as well as you. Like I said before, look them up in Black's Law Dictionary to see what I mean. Notice also that the creation of the trust is "evidenced by registration" of the property. What did you do with that car after you gave the MCO to the state?

Notice also this section:

It would appear to me that after giving MCO to the car to the state, a "constructive trust" is created for you courtesy of the state. Look up the exact definition of "constructive trust" in a law dictionary - don't take someone else's word for it. You have unknowingly and by way of fraud and deceit transferred right, title, and interest to property supposedly owned by you to the state or it's agent by way of giving them the MCO. You then register the property which is all that is necessary to create a trust. Remember that it says:

Remember that registration wouldn't constitute the creation of a trust if the document only had your name on it. Usually, that "title" and "registration" application and document have

a) your name,
b) the name of the state and motor vehicle agency representing the state you're dealing with,

and finally,

c) the signature and/or seal of the head of that agency.

So there are the requisite number of entities or "person"(s) named on the documents to create a trust.

Look at it this way:

You unknowingly create the trust by transferring right, title, and a certain amount of interest in - BUT NOT POSSESSION OF - the property to the agency head named on the "Certificate of Title"/"Registration." Usually, this person's signature or seal is included on the document. Take a look at yours and see.

The state becomes the required beneficiary because they are named as well. Even if you're the beneficiary, who actually controls the property now?

The state/dmv agency names you as "owner" although you only have "ownership" in the form of bare legal possession of the car. You don't have all right, title, and interest in the car, just bare legal possession. You are then placed in a fiduciary capacity to make sure that the car is well maintained and operated safely for the benefit of the state.

So what happens when you get a ticket for having a tail light out? You start whining that nobody was hurt and the common law says that there has to be an injured party and you demand the state produce the injured party! ----- Whereupon, the judge says "Shut up and don't mention that Constitution again or I'll throw you in jail for contempt!" What he’s really saying to himself is: "#1, you idiot, you’re standing in my administrative tribunal and you haven’t rebutted the silent presumption that this law applies to you, and #2, you have a fiduciary duty to maintain that car and you screwed up! Stop whining about the Constitution, it’s IRRELEVANT! Pay the clerk on your way out...and don’t come back!"

You're scratching your head but the judge knows what's happening. He's enforcing the terms of a constructive trust that you are involved in - trusts are private contractual agreements and operate outside of the law - it has nothing to do with the Constitution and the fact that you brought it up was irrelevant. You have a fiduciary duty to the state and the REAL owner, to keep that car in tip-top shape and you screwed up. It doesn't matter that nobody was hurt and he WILL heave your butt in the can if you keep bringing up that damned common law and Constitution.

Let’s take a look at the actual documents.

Q. What form does this document take?
A. A statement of right, title, and interest in the property described on its face. It might even qualify as an affidavit if they hadn't used the bogus word "certify."

Q. Do you see the name of the "STATE OF _________________" anywhere on this document?
A. No.

Q. Was permission from the "STATE OF _________________" required for the car maker to have all right, title, and interest in this car?
A. No.

Q. Was permission from the "STATE OF _________________" required for the car maker to transfer all right, title, and interest in this car to the dealer (other than a license to do business in the state) ?
A. No.

Q. If you paid for the car, in full, (preferably with lawful money of the united States, i.e.,  gold and silver coin of the united States per 12 U.S.C. 152), had this certificate signed over to you by the dealer and delivered to you along with a bill of sale, and then had a tow-truck drag the car to your driveway, would you in fact have all right, title, and interest in the car?
A. Yes.

Q. What evidence would you have that you retain all right, title, and interest in the car at this point?
A. An unbroken chain of all right, title, and interest in the form of The Certificate of Origin, properly transferred to you, and a bill of sale showing you bought it (preferably with lawful money).

You "pay" for the car with a corporate, negotiable instrument of debt called a Federal Reserve Note

You sign your name on the back of the Certificate of Origin and let the dealer "Title" it

The "STATE OF _________________" requires that you or the dealer fork over the Certificate of Origin; in order to get a ...

like a chump, you gave that evidence away to the "STATE OF _________________" !!!

- so -

they have all right and title to the car and you simply have a possessory interest in it !

Look at the back of this fraud. You'll notice that it talks about an "ASSIGNMENT OF TITLE." Look up "assignment" in Black's law dictionary. It doesn't necessarily mean that you actually had every right, title, and interest existing in the property to begin with, it only means that you're transferring what interest or right in the property that you do have. If all you had was an interest in the physical possession of the car, you could certainly transfer (or assign) that interest to someone else provided that there was no contractual prohibition to do so. Hey, I didn't make this crap up, the lawyers did.

Notice also that the English is wrong. It says, "For the sum of $______ , I/we hereby assign, transfer and convey <WHAT?> unto ________ the motor vehicle described on the reverse..."

Furthermore, if this was a document that had its origin in law rather than contract, could you be compelled to testify against yourself when it came to the odometer reading? While it's true that this certainly looks like just another bogus administrative requirement that doesn't apply to you (supra - which would explain why you're required to testify against yourself), when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, it's hard not to think that something "funny" is going on here.

What is important to remember here is not what they print at the top of the instrument, but what the body of the instrument says and accomplishes. For example, the heading of a statute is not the statute and doesn't have the force of law:

....................................................................................

Massachusetts Acts and Resolves

Statute 2000, Ch. 1

Chapter 1. Politicians to be Truthful

Section 1. This Act may be cited as "An Act to Require Truthful Statements by Politicians."

Section 2. Politicians may outright lie, obfuscate, equivocate, prevaricate, and otherwise make any statement whatsoever with complete and absolute disregard for the truth or the facts concerning anything.

Chapter 2. Politicians Not to Steal

....................................................................................

See what I mean?

The point is that they call it a "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" but it doesn't do, take the form of, or say anything like what the heading suggests or like what the non state-originated "CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN" does.

This is what may be happening when you buy a new car:

1. You go to the dealer and you exchange some currency and sign a contract to purchase a new car.

2. You probably finance part of the cost of the car.

3. You're too lazy to go "title and register" the car yourself, so you let the dealer do it.

4. The dealer gets you sign off on a transfer of the Certificate of Origin in the flurry of paper signing at the last minute.

5. The dealer takes the Certificate of Origin to the motor vehicle agency, along with your money, and gives it to them with your permission - and he (or the bank that financed the car) receives a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - mere evidence that a title may or may not exist.

6. The dealer then gives the The "STATE OF _________________" some more of your money to register the car.

If you study the Uniform Custodial Trust Act, or whatever the equivalent is in your state, you'll find that any adult person can create a trust by written transfer of property to another party and that the creation of this trust is evidenced by registration of the property. What did you just let the dealer do?

The effect of all of this that the "STATE OF _________________" just involved you in the creation of a constructive trust by way of fraud and deceit whereby they got you to transfer the car into a trust where the "STATE OF _________________" or someone unknown is the beneficiary, the head of the motor vehicle agency is the trustee/actual owner, and you simply have a right of possession and a fiduciary duty to maintain and "operate safely" SOMEBODY ELSE’S CAR. Gee, could that be why they think can search THEIR CAR whenever they want? Could that be why you have to wear seatbelts when you're "operating" THEIR CAR? Is that the reason why when you go into court and mention the Constitution, the judge says "you bring up that Constitution again and I'll throw you in jail for contempt of court" ? After all, you don't have all right, title, and interest in THEIR CAR, and furthermore you have a contractual and fiduciary duty and obligation to "operate" THEIR CAR in the manner that they choose! Exactly what does a private contract (the constructive trust) and your obligations under it have anything to do with public law or the Constitution? They suckered us, folks. What are we going to do about it ?

P.S. Here's one more thing to think about. When a politician wants to spend money he doesn't have and he issues bonds for some pet project of his that are bought by big banks, are the banks just taking the politician's word that he's going to raise your taxes to pay them back? If you were a big bank or huge institutional investor, would you take the word of a politician on anything without some kind of collateral? What do you think that politician is using for collateral ? What do you think the banks have on that politician to make sure he pays them back ?

THE FACT THAT THE STATE OF _________ OWNS WHAT YOU THINK IS YOUR CAR AND YOU WOULDN'T BE VERY HAPPY TO FIND THAT OUT. Ask your Governor and the head of your state's department of motor vehicles if the state has any right, title, or interest in your car, ask them if your car is the subject of any trust, ask them if your car has any security instruments based on it created by the state or anyone that they are aware of, and ask him to put his answer in writing under a state letterhead, sworn under penalty of perjury. Don't hold your breath for a reply.

Now there's one last thing the sharper readers will have noticed. The end of C. 201C Sec. 1 said:

"All transfers in trust under this chapter shall be revocable by the transferor at any time he has legal capacity by a writing signed by him and delivered to the person, or if more than one to any person serving as trustee."

Here's today's assignment. Figure out what it means to have "legal capacity" and what it is that you have to say in that writing and who you have to present it to. When you figure it out, let me know what you found. Hint: Am Jur 2.

This is one possible way to defeat this silent judicial notice and presumption of trust. What if you were to publish a legal notice, three times, over 3 consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of wide circulation in your area that looked something like this:

Parties claiming interest in property(s): (1) 1976: AMC: Pacer: VIN#: 1234567890987654321 and/or (2) 1987:Chev:Blazer:S-10 Pickup: VIN#: 1234567890987654321 must state interest by March 30, 1998 by replying at Box 1234, Anycounty News, Anytown, TA. For definitions, see Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. The term "interest" means, but is not limited by: [1] an instrument of security by hypothecation, [2] claim: adverse, equitable, legal, marketable, [3] interest: adverse, equitable, legal, [4] ownership: adverse, equitable, legal, possessory, [5] right: adverse, equitable, legal, possessory, [6] presumption by statute, [7] subject by trust: constructive, de son tort, ex-delicto, ex-maleficio, implied, involuntary, [8] title: adverse, equitable, legal, marketable, [9] interest resulting by trust defined in law: private, public, International, Federal, General-Laws of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, statute(s), [10] subject of bankruptcy, [11] interest by operation of law: private, public , International, Federal, General-Laws of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, statute(s), [12] lien or encumbrance.

and then what if you motioned a court for a declaratory judgement (quiet title) stating that by virtue of no claims of interest being stated pursuant by your notice, you have absolute right, title, and interest in those properties? (What are they going to do? Admit they own your car?) Maybe they never did. In any event you now have undisputed proof that you "own" the car to introduce into evidence when it’s court time and nobody can claim otherwise. Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. It can't hurt.