|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 62244
7/21/2006 5:32 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
what can any of you tell me about fighting an administrative action by the state DMV three years after the alleged offense?? especially when the adjudicated statute clearly says they have 90 days to commence enforcement action??
thanks in advance |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/21/2006 6:11 PM
 | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
whats the statute number, state and circumstances behind the action?
Ar you sure about the 90 days? Usually more like a year or 2 |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 120442
7/21/2006 9:12 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
I still have a court summons tho, it is seperate and arrived before the letter.
what is the date of service (ie when were you served) and is there an appearance date on the summons?
i'm having trouble reading the docs in photobucket...but CAC is clearly a 3rd party debt collector.
Hope the service was less than 30 days ago. Quoting: shibumi2
The day of service is the 21 of last month. I have 35 days total to respond which give me till wensday or something like that.
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 120442
7/21/2006 9:15 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Shimbumi2
A sherrif delivered it. It had to be signed for. My wife signed for it.
if your wife signed for it. it is a valid service...anyone in your immediate family over the age of 14 (varies a little by state) that signs for something served on you is as if given to you directly.
Don't blame her, tho. everyone reacts the same way when confronted by AUTHORITY FIGURES. Use this lesson to teach your family members the law.
The only real issue is that it officially starts the clock on time related issues such as the 30 day response. Quoting: shibumi2
Yeah Iam gonna go to the clerk this week and file a dispute.
Also CAC has passed this on to a third party debt collector. If you want monday I will rescan docs.
Sorry I havent been on today. I have religious obligations this weekend which started today.
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 120442
7/21/2006 9:18 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
I sent of this letter to the collector via certified return receipt mail.
Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C.
136 Gaither Drive
Suite 100
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
To Whom It May Concern:
I recently received a letter from your offices stating that I owe Credit Acceptance Corporation $16,609.38. I am disputing this claim.
First, I want to inspect the original note. If any further action is taken by your company before providing the original not to prove your claims, I will demand that the original note be presented in court as evidence.
Secondly, I request a total breakdown of the balance and charges you ask for in the letter you sent me. Your letter to me request $10436.77 more than the court document states. This totals $16,609.38. However, the court summons states the total amount owed is $6,172.61. According to the court summons the balance is $5,566.01. Added to this is the attorney’s fee of $606.60.
I will only respond to registered mail from this point on.
Regards,
Eric
New Jersey
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 62244
7/21/2006 9:38 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
the state is new jersey, the statute is 39:4 (driving while suspended) and yes I looked up the statute which clearly states the limitation is 90 days.
they basically said that at the time i had been pulled over for passing on the shoulder of a traffic jam my licence was under suspension(which is bullshit because the town i was pulled over in is NOTORIOUS for hauling your ass to jail when driving while suspended)they gave me a ticket after running my licence and sent me on my way. a year later i get a notice of proposed suspension from DMV telling me the above stated reason. I called and asked "doesn't the police of that town call in to the DMV computer to check for licence status?" they answered in the affirmative but couldn't tell me why I was not nabbed for "driving while suspended".
anyway I was given the choice of administrative conference to which i took a print out of the statute in question and pointed out to them that they were well beyond the limit. They tried to ignore it saying it didn't matter but I kept pressing for an answer on the statute of limitations issue. to which the case officer answers oh thats adjudicated and we are acting under administrative statute. at that point i ask to see the manager of DMV(at the state capitol) ask him the same question and he answers that "we can come after you years after the fact because we have no statute of limitations" I asked which jurisdiction the DMV was operating under and his face TURNED WHITE!!! he answered in a stuttering manner "this is state executive government created by the governor" at which point I started smiling and he asked me if I was an attorney.
anyway when I went to sign the form for this to be kicked up to the OAL I tried to make a reservation of my rights under UCC 1-207 and the woman physically stopped me saying that "I couldn't that and just had to sign" I was like BULLSHIT if I can't make a reservation of my rights Im not signing anything to which the manager AGREED that I am not required to sign anything. anyway I got the letter from the OAL telling me what date I had to be there. I didn't go because I knew it would be more of the same BS and the fact that I didn't sign would make it interesting to see what they would do without my consent. I got the letter saying that I had not shown up and the matter would be handed back to the transmitting agency(DMV) for proper disposition. I assume this means they would suspend my licence but I haven't heard or seen anything so far and this was over a month ago.
At this point I am ready to file suit for judicial review of my driver's licence contract as "unconscionable" since there was no full disclosure at the time of the nexus with the DMV. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 120199
7/21/2006 10:00 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
"I tried to make a reservation of my rights under UCC 1-207 and the woman physically stopped me saying that "I couldn't that and just had to sign"
Is there a law or something against that? If there is a contract, I sign with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - UCC 1-207.
All of my checks have the words ALL RIGHTS RESERVED printed on them. Can't be too careful. :)
. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 120346
7/21/2006 10:13 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
So let's get this straight.
In order to be free, we must:
1) File for a land patent;
2) Add "Without prejudice" to everything we sign;
3) Ask for the "original" signed document and or note to any and all legal matters;
4) Get under the juristiction of common law courts;
5) Grow our own foods and make our own goods;
6) Live in an Earth Ship home(earthship.org);
7) Use gold/silver as currency;
any more suggestions would be helpful.. |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/21/2006 11:32 PM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Shimbumi2
A sherrif delivered it. It had to be signed for. My wife signed for it.
if your wife signed for it. it is a valid service...anyone in your immediate family over the age of 14 (varies a little by state) that signs for something served on you is as if given to you directly.
Don't blame her, tho. everyone reacts the same way when confronted by AUTHORITY FIGURES. Use this lesson to teach your family members the law.
The only real issue is that it officially starts the clock on time related issues such as the 30 day response.
Yeah Iam gonna go to the clerk this week and file a dispute.
Also CAC has passed this on to a third party debt collector. If you want monday I will rescan docs.
Sorry I havent been on today. I have religious obligations this weekend which started today. Quoting: Moreinfoplease
yeah, if you can rescan I'll take a look at it.
I'll be out of town all weekend and offline until sunday night |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/21/2006 11:38 PM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
the state is new jersey, the statute is 39:4 (driving while suspended) and yes I looked up the statute which clearly states the limitation is 90 days.
they basically said that at the time i had been pulled over for passing on the shoulder of a traffic jam my licence was under suspension(which is bullshit because the town i was pulled over in is NOTORIOUS for hauling your ass to jail when driving while suspended)they gave me a ticket after running my licence and sent me on my way. a year later i get a notice of proposed suspension from DMV telling me the above stated reason. I called and asked "doesn't the police of that town call in to the DMV computer to check for licence status?" they answered in the affirmative but couldn't tell me why I was not nabbed for "driving while suspended".
anyway I was given the choice of administrative conference to which i took a print out of the statute in question and pointed out to them that they were well beyond the limit. They tried to ignore it saying it didn't matter but I kept pressing for an answer on the statute of limitations issue. to which the case officer answers oh thats adjudicated and we are acting under administrative statute. at that point i ask to see the manager of DMV(at the state capitol) ask him the same question and he answers that "we can come after you years after the fact because we have no statute of limitations" I asked which jurisdiction the DMV was operating under and his face TURNED WHITE!!! he answered in a stuttering manner "this is state executive government created by the governor" at which point I started smiling and he asked me if I was an attorney.
anyway when I went to sign the form for this to be kicked up to the OAL I tried to make a reservation of my rights under UCC 1-207 and the woman physically stopped me saying that "I couldn't that and just had to sign" I was like BULLSHIT if I can't make a reservation of my rights Im not signing anything to which the manager AGREED that I am not required to sign anything. anyway I got the letter from the OAL telling me what date I had to be there. I didn't go because I knew it would be more of the same BS and the fact that I didn't sign would make it interesting to see what they would do without my consent. I got the letter saying that I had not shown up and the matter would be handed back to the transmitting agency(DMV) for proper disposition. I assume this means they would suspend my licence but I haven't heard or seen anything so far and this was over a month ago.
At this point I am ready to file suit for judicial review of my driver's licence contract as "unconscionable" since there was no full disclosure at the time of the nexus with the DMV. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 62244
sounds like a bunch of bullshit they are laying upon you. traffic is administrative in nature, whereas the courts are either criminal or civil under common law. the "municipal courts" are ADMINISTRATIVE in nature, and really don't exist...they are kind of like federal reserve notes...only existing because people think they do.
if you get service with a court date, you need to file a MOTION TO DISMISS due to lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. It's not just the statute of limitations you mentioned, but the whole thing is bogus.
if you get notice, let me know and i can give you some ideas....otherwise, they will probably shitcan this one as you called their bluff...and they really don't want to do work on a small $$ case like yours when there are so many other sheep about to fleece. |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/21/2006 11:40 PM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
"I tried to make a reservation of my rights under UCC 1-207 and the woman physically stopped me saying that "I couldn't that and just had to sign"
Is there a law or something against that? If there is a contract, I sign with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - UCC 1-207.
All of my checks have the words ALL RIGHTS RESERVED printed on them. Can't be too careful. :)
. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 120199
Type..."Signed under TDC" (threat, duress coercion) or sign it U.R. Fraud....no one really looks at the signature if you scrawl it out.
under common law you can use any name you want anyway...as long as its not for fraudulent purposes....even tho the entire statute system is a fraud |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 109258
7/22/2006 12:07 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
shibumi2- you are WAY out of your league...you have obviously done enough reading on the law to merely get yourself in trouble...dont take others down with you.
go to law school and pass a bar...or leave it up to the pros. you are clueless.
telling people to file a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction for a ticket is RETARDED. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 62244
7/23/2006 11:27 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
in reality all you need is a reservation of your rights on your driver's licence signature and you can ask the court to produce an "injured party" in a traffic case. A smart judge will dismiss the ticket right away and a pigheaded one will try to proceed and end up getting sued under common law. |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/24/2006 11:06 AM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
shibumi2- you are WAY out of your league...you have obviously done enough reading on the law to merely get yourself in trouble...dont take others down with you.
go to law school and pass a bar...or leave it up to the pros. you are clueless.
telling people to file a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction for a ticket is RETARDED. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 109258
Hard to refute your impeccable logic.
Lawyers are far from PROS, and most are not even literate.
The TRUTH, which most lawyers avoid like the PLAGUE, is that 95% of default judgments are defective in one way or another...And VOID JUDGMENTS are not time barred...so the sooner people find out about the defective judgments, the sooner they can reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
No ONE's going down, except the corrupt judiciary and lawyers when the truth comes out. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 102782
7/24/2006 11:08 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
save the muthafuckin' day YEAH! |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/24/2006 11:20 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Shibumi2
Here are the pics in a zip file. Downlaod unzip and then you use your image viewer to zoom in on the pics.
[link to www.yousendit.com]
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/24/2006 12:19 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/24/2006 1:00 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121711
7/24/2006 6:32 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Feed us more information |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121883
7/25/2006 4:59 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
bbtttt |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121961
7/25/2006 8:22 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
I agree with the concepts and theories behind this argument, however, if you don't know this stuff INSIDE OUT, they will chew you up and spit you out in court.
Remember, courts are full of the same snakes that conceived of all this legal trickery to begin with. It's THEIR web that THEY constructed. So they're always going to be one step ahead of you, always going to know one more angle that you haven't considered.
I wish you well. If it were me, I'd be seeking divine spiritual help as well.  |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121961
7/25/2006 8:27 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
62244: I have the reservation of rights on my drivers license, but have never had occasion to invoke it.
When I renewed my license back in the 90's, they took a new picture and requested a new signature. I put "without prejudice" under my name. The lady at the counter said I couldn't do it.
I asked her to show me in the Motor vehicle Code where it says I can't do it. I told her it's part of my signature and went into a bit of explanation as to why.
She had a little pow-wow with someone in a back room and 5 minutes later came out and said, "it's OK, you can have your signature like that."  |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/25/2006 10:36 AM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Shibumi2
Here are the pics in a zip file. Downlaod unzip and then you use your image viewer to zoom in on the pics.
[ link to www.yousendit.com]
I could read everything except page 6. The fine print contract...can you enlarge it and re-scan? It appears that there were some clauses that you did not agree to (as witnessed by no signature appearing). There is also a FTC notice that has something to do with third party assigning of interests, but I could not read it.
You need to answer the complaint to avoid a default judgment, which you do not want. The date of the agreement, if I read correctly, was 7/19/96...what was the default date, or what date did you technically go into default.
It would appear that you might be outside of the statute of limitation depending on when the default occurred. If NJ is 7 years (which you need to verify--google contract law NJ) then the answer is straightforward...no actionable cause exists and you move for dismissal. At that point it's over for all intents and purposes.
If you are still inside the statute, then you need to attack the underlying issue as to verification of ORIGINAL contract, legality of assignment of debt, etc. Somewhat more involved, but doable.
Find out if you are outside the 7 year window and try to rescan the contract "fine print". Depending on the specifics, I might be able to send you the outline of a response to use.
The post about knowing what you are doing is correct. you'll have to start reading up on civil procedure at some point if you intend to take the matter to court yourself. It's not really all that complicated, but you need to do your homework because they will try and trip you up. But you can win. I did, repeatedly, once I learned the basics. And I didn't know squat when I started. |
|
anon 593565
User ID: 13226
7/25/2006 11:04 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
I don't know if this has been said yet, but when every American is born, a STRAWMAN with your name in capital letters is created and a sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS is created at the Treasury, to be used for debt payments on the national debt. To correct this one must gain back control of this strawman and by refusing to recognize the "corporation" of the U.S. and its subcorps. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 106184 (OP)
7/25/2006 11:08 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
|
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/25/2006 11:18 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Yeah I am going to rescan in a minute. I will resend to you. Also I am going to file my ANSWER today at the clerks office.
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/25/2006 11:19 AM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
I don't know if this has been said yet, but when every American is born, a STRAWMAN with your name in capital letters is created and a sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS is created at the Treasury, to be used for debt payments on the national debt. To correct this one must gain back control of this strawman and by refusing to recognize the "corporation" of the U.S. and its subcorps. Quoting: anon 593565 13226
this stuff will get you NOWHERE fast...you think any judge is going to say...hey, you're right...case dismissed.
not likely.
all these proceedings occur under statute law. a better argument, and one some people have had success with, is that you are a Soverign, and not subject to statute, code or administrative proceedings. Which is true. But you have to do the pleadings correctly and be able to walk the talk. not always easy, and best to make your point via pleadings instead of argument. if you do it right, it will be thrown out before you get to court.
right now, he has a complaint filed. it is possible to argue jurisdiction or Soverignity, but it would require a lot of preparation and understanding that is not there yet. Probably best to try and win in the statutory or procedural issues. |
|
shibumi2
User ID: 74188
7/25/2006 11:22 AM
| | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Yeah I am going to rescan in a minute. I will resend to you. Also I am going to file my ANSWER today at the clerks office. Quoting: Moreinfoplease
are you going with outside the statute of limitation timeframe barring enforcement?
you might also want to fashion it as a RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS...put the ball back into their court. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/25/2006 11:50 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Yeah I am going to rescan in a minute. I will resend to you. Also I am going to file my ANSWER today at the clerks office.
are you going with outside the statute of limitation timeframe barring enforcement?
you might also want to fashion it as a RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS...put the ball back into their court. Quoting: shibumi2
Lawyer tells me that I have restarted the statute of limitations(6) years by making a payment in 2003 (Doh!) However he said there is a chance they don't know about it.
Looking up how to file complaint and motion now. If it cost to file each seperately I can only afford to file one.
Page six is here
[link to www.yousendit.com]
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
Moreinfoplease
User ID: 106184
7/25/2006 12:55 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
The famous Jewish historian Josephus attests to its authenticity. He says that Alexander the Great, during his war against Persia in the fourth century B.C.E., came to Jerusalem, where the priests showed him a copy of the book of Daniel. Alexander himself concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. This would have been about a century and a half before the “forgery” as proposed by critics. |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
