Excellent legal analysis of the "Commercial Vehicle Code." The misnomer of "Law Enforcement" needs a thorough education in this specific area of law. I often inquire of law enforcement officers how they enforce the 4 laws of therrmo dynamics? Then have to simplify the question to how do you enforce gravity? Natural laws don't require enforcement, which is what make them laws. I've yet to get any legitimate answer other than one officer who stated " I don't know how to answer that question." At least he was honest.
Thank you for dropping this analysis. I have three questions about this. One is about the definition of a driver. A driver is either a person engaged in transportation of goods, or, he is the one doing the driving. This is a catch 22. Either you're employed in international commerce, or, you're operating a motor vehicle. Either way, you still need a driver's license. 1) Could this catch 22 be used to claim that the holder of a driver's license is in the employ of the municipal contractor who issues it? 2) Could that claim in turn be used to purchase Dead Peasant Life Insurance in the Driver's name?
3) Could a criminal or civil trial for the murder or attempted murder of the driver create a situation that would force disclosure of Dead Peasant Life Insurance polices in an attempt to discover motive? Do you see what I'm driving at? Federal and Municipal contractors could claim that we are their employees, then purchase Dead Peasant Life insurance policies in our names, then create the condition (such as forced poison injections) to cash out those policies. Life insurance policies have been used to establish motive in many murder cases and attempted murder cases, and employers have been found guilty of doing this very thing...buying Dead Peasant insurance then designing working conditions to kill their employees. Is there any other legal framework for forcing disclosure of Dead Peasant Life Insurance held in one's name? How can we force disclosure?
If you go the original meaning (and there is no express decree of nullity) in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a driver is "DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."
Also, in all instances, a "driver" is a "person". That is a defined in a limited meaning by the statutes of construction. So, it is not a catch 22 when taken in whole with the Title, the statutory definition in its self-limiting commercial entity cohorts within the definition, and it is against the right of locomotion as a personal liberty repeatedly supported by Supreme court rulings.
As far as any bonds or insurance issued based on "persons" who have driver's licenses and are listed in the commerical roles, i could only speculate.
Now that you’ve got the idea that service contractors could be buying Dead Peasant insurance in your name, and attempting to murder you with poison injections, it’s up to you how much you want to speculate about it. I’ve speculated about it quite a lot, myself. I sense you’re not too into this line of thought, so let me ask you this: If I sued agents of the state for attempting to murder me in civil court, would they be forced to disclose the existence of life insurance policies that could prove motive?
The only way you are going to know is if you give it a try and file the claim. One can only sue an entity as an entity. This is one of the basic challenges that is a bit hard to separate the fact from the fiction. The corporate name is what is used to sue and be sued.
A claim is a presentation of facts, evidence, and conclusions of law that left unrebutted or without counter evidence, stands as truth in law.
In a suit, It comes down to damages and proveable injury..
For a claim it is harm and injury to your property. Something exclusive to you from all others in society.
It is not about whether i have thought about something or not, it is the ability to make a claim of trespass that will meet the standard of evidence required.
Who is the man for which you can prove a claim of harm? Once established, send a series notices with evidence of said harm. If facts are left unrebutted, they stand as fact in law. Then press the claim against said man of the trespass of harm. It needs to be real, and conclusive and fall into the true definition of trespass.
If the goal is to go after the "government", they will only have a respresentative to stand in on behalf of the government. The government cannot take the stand and testify as to how it did or did not do you harm. Hence, why it either needs to be a suit between fictitious entities and you get a lawyer or stand pro se representing "yourself" and be about assumed injury and let the cards fall where they may and follow the excrutiating procedural hurdles, or know the man who has in fact done you harm and hold him accountable by verifiable claim.
Excellent legal analysis of the "Commercial Vehicle Code." The misnomer of "Law Enforcement" needs a thorough education in this specific area of law. I often inquire of law enforcement officers how they enforce the 4 laws of therrmo dynamics? Then have to simplify the question to how do you enforce gravity? Natural laws don't require enforcement, which is what make them laws. I've yet to get any legitimate answer other than one officer who stated " I don't know how to answer that question." At least he was honest.
Thank you for dropping this analysis. I have three questions about this. One is about the definition of a driver. A driver is either a person engaged in transportation of goods, or, he is the one doing the driving. This is a catch 22. Either you're employed in international commerce, or, you're operating a motor vehicle. Either way, you still need a driver's license. 1) Could this catch 22 be used to claim that the holder of a driver's license is in the employ of the municipal contractor who issues it? 2) Could that claim in turn be used to purchase Dead Peasant Life Insurance in the Driver's name?
3) Could a criminal or civil trial for the murder or attempted murder of the driver create a situation that would force disclosure of Dead Peasant Life Insurance polices in an attempt to discover motive? Do you see what I'm driving at? Federal and Municipal contractors could claim that we are their employees, then purchase Dead Peasant Life insurance policies in our names, then create the condition (such as forced poison injections) to cash out those policies. Life insurance policies have been used to establish motive in many murder cases and attempted murder cases, and employers have been found guilty of doing this very thing...buying Dead Peasant insurance then designing working conditions to kill their employees. Is there any other legal framework for forcing disclosure of Dead Peasant Life Insurance held in one's name? How can we force disclosure?
If you go the original meaning (and there is no express decree of nullity) in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a driver is "DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."
Also, in all instances, a "driver" is a "person". That is a defined in a limited meaning by the statutes of construction. So, it is not a catch 22 when taken in whole with the Title, the statutory definition in its self-limiting commercial entity cohorts within the definition, and it is against the right of locomotion as a personal liberty repeatedly supported by Supreme court rulings.
As far as any bonds or insurance issued based on "persons" who have driver's licenses and are listed in the commerical roles, i could only speculate.
Now that you’ve got the idea that service contractors could be buying Dead Peasant insurance in your name, and attempting to murder you with poison injections, it’s up to you how much you want to speculate about it. I’ve speculated about it quite a lot, myself. I sense you’re not too into this line of thought, so let me ask you this: If I sued agents of the state for attempting to murder me in civil court, would they be forced to disclose the existence of life insurance policies that could prove motive?
The only way you are going to know is if you give it a try and file the claim. One can only sue an entity as an entity. This is one of the basic challenges that is a bit hard to separate the fact from the fiction. The corporate name is what is used to sue and be sued.
A claim is a presentation of facts, evidence, and conclusions of law that left unrebutted or without counter evidence, stands as truth in law.
In a suit, It comes down to damages and proveable injury..
For a claim it is harm and injury to your property. Something exclusive to you from all others in society.
It is not about whether i have thought about something or not, it is the ability to make a claim of trespass that will meet the standard of evidence required.
Who is the man for which you can prove a claim of harm? Once established, send a series notices with evidence of said harm. If facts are left unrebutted, they stand as fact in law. Then press the claim against said man of the trespass of harm. It needs to be real, and conclusive and fall into the true definition of trespass.
If the goal is to go after the "government", they will only have a respresentative to stand in on behalf of the government. The government cannot take the stand and testify as to how it did or did not do you harm. Hence, why it either needs to be a suit between fictitious entities and you get a lawyer or stand pro se representing "yourself" and be about assumed injury and let the cards fall where they may and follow the excrutiating procedural hurdles, or know the man who has in fact done you harm and hold him accountable by verifiable claim.
Thank you for sharing your work.
Hear, hear!
Any to get your irs presentation? How about common law group?
Are you asking for a copy of the presentation and are you also asking if there is a common law group?
Yes I would like a copy of the presentation and any info on the common law group you could give.