News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Thanks for your comments A Duo.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read through this line-by-line at the moment, but in reading sections of it, I think the link to the document that you posted does not apply in this case.

Reason?

Same as a stated before.



The relationship between each "person" (or "natural person") and the federal government has to be viewed in the context of a commercial contract between entities, which it is, not a typical law relationship. When you do that, UCC takes over and these other legal theories about "uninformed consent" are irrelevant.

Jurisdiction, jurisdiction, jurisdiction.

To understand this, you must begin to think in terms of:

• A traffic ticket being a commercial presentation (demand for payment)
• Paying for a drivers license as a commercial transaction
• Social security payments as payment for a commercial service
• Income tax as an excise tax (this is well settled in the courts)
• An occupation license fee as the granting of an excise privilege (the right to work) on private land (you don't own your land or car, etc.) For example, a "Certificate of Title" on a car is not a Title. It is actually a certification that the title exists. And who holds the real title? Well, that would be the entity (person, i.e. United States - Corporate - Yellow Fringe Flag) that has the right to confiscate your car because it's really theirs to begin with. They would not be legally able to do this unless they held title. (This is difficult for some people to believe, but that's only because they have forgotten that this same thing has happened over and over in history. It is what the American forefathers were trying to escape from and why they gave us such strong admonition to nip tyranny before it begins to take root. Their radical warnings are well justified, especially to those who understand what has happened to this Country, and to all countries that now fly a yellow-fringed flag, which now includes nearly all countries worldwide.)

I would also refer to my previous posts.

And again, what's really important (other than perception, which is what the perpetrators often hide behind) is how they can dance in the court room to use existing wordage to confuse the jury, which isn't as hard if you own the judge, but that's another conversation.

It's like doctors that get a license. This word—license—actually makes it sound like you're getting additional rights to do something that you could not do before. Of course, the opposite is true. You are now bound to a system that restricts and regulates what you do, yet the sheep follow. (I know there's a lot more to this but I hope you get the gist).

We've entered into a contract that is changeable and we've agreed to be bound so long as we're notified, and have remedy/recourse. So here we are.

Of course, lawyers—like doctors—are taught in a context of certain huge assumptions. When you remove the smoke and mirror show, what the "law-makers" really do is take away something you already have and then offer it back to you with stipulations. It's simply amazing, but like the amalgam issue as it relates to doctors (there are still doctors that believe that mercury escaping from dental amalgam is harmless simply because they've been told this by their teachers), this issue escapes lawyers, again, because they are taught what they are taught with certain, huge assumptions made.

I'm covering years of ground here, but for those with an ear...

A traffic ticket is a financial presentation—a UCC instrument—but few professionals understand it that way because they don't see the issue in context (i.e. jurisdiction). Amazingly, it's all constructed in such a brilliant way that you can operate within this system, make a living, and die, without ever knowing these simple basic truths, and this is—obviously—by design. And if by design, it must be deceptive; Obviously deceptive, once you look "outside the box".

So...

I respectfully have to agree with what you've posted, in as much as I read it, but state that it is out of context (jurisdiction) in respect to 105-85.

Again, covering a lot of ground here and not looking for a long debate, but because it only takes moments to grasp (understand) the big picture but years (usually) to accept (believe) it, discussions like this can sometimes lead to unnecessary passion, not unlike a discussion about evolution can, but once you've seen outside the box of evolution and seen the puppeteers at work, it all begins to make sense and you see the duality of meanings in law that are constructed to the benefit of the puppeteers.

Again, for those who have an ear...

All the best.


A simplistic yet intriguing primer

An in-depth "peep" outside the box