Aggrieved Parties and the general public has been and is being scammed in the following manner through what is undoubtedly a Traffic Racket:
A. Men and women, herein referred as Victims, through propaganda not based on law, are taught they are required to purchase a “driver’s License”/“chauffeur’s License” to ride their non-commercial vehicles on the roadways; failure to purchase the License will cause the Victim engaged in ordinary travel to be arrested/kidnapped by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.
B. The Victim through harassment and coercion from the Weaponized Peace Officers, are forced into buying the “motor vehicle registration” service and display the receipt via a “License Plate”, failure to display such receipt will cause Victim’s vehicle to be taken through force exercised by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.
C. The weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers ensure the Victim appears before an alleged Traffic Referee who through abuse of process extorts Fines and Court Cost from the Victim.
D. This harassment and coercion is supported and upheld by the State’s Lower courts and is further supported by with a blind eye approval from the State’s higher Courts.
E. The basic proceeds are as follows:
a. Licensed and Registration proceeds are shared by the State and The Municipalities that host DMV Offices.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, State/Municipal Employees and all State run pension plans.
b. Fine and Penalty proceeds are shared by the Courts, The Municipalities and The State Treasury.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, all State run pension plans and Municipalities who use these funds to hire more revenue making highwaymen and Traffic Referees.
Welcome to the Freedom from Government’s channel 200th video! Today I have a special treat for you, I am going to cruise the Las Vegas strip with PRIVATE tags, NO LICENSE, REGISTRATION, or INSURANCE! If you want to learn more about WHY (for example) these government documents are not only a pain and expensive to obtain and maintain, but learn how you actually give up your property when you register it and put “state plates” on it by visiting http://freedomfromgovernment.org . Stop being a voluntary victim!
This is a list of objections in American law:
Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked to a witness include:
Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.
Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.
Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)
Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.
Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.
Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.
Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.
Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts.
Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.
Incomplete: opposing party only introducing part of the writing (conversation/act/declaration), taken out of context. Under the evidence rule providing for completeness, other party can move to introduce additional parts. If any documents presented for the review, the judge and other party entitled to a complete copy, not a partial copy, of the document. When a witness is presented with a surprise document, he should be able to take time to study it, before he can answer any questions.
Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.
More prejudicial than probative: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a judge has the discretion to exclude evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”
Proper reasons for objecting to a witness’s answer include:
Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not call for one.
Non-responsive: the witness’s response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all
Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question.
Example: “Did your mother call?” “Yeah. She called at 3:00.” Opposing counsel can object to the latter part of this statement, since it answers a question that was not asked. With some concern for annoying the court, counsel will selectively use this to prevent a witness from getting into self-serving answers.
The courts and government agents use presumptions liberally in their dealings with the public. The thing that makes these presumptions so bad is the fact that they “stand” until “rebutted”. As was mentioned in the chapter immediately preceding this one, the fraud that is being perpetrated means that we have recourse to remove these presumptions and demand that the government offer full disclosure if they want us to contract with them anymore.
There is an old English term that is used to make a legal definition of physical property, but it is a good analogy to use to describe what we need to remove these legal presumptions once and for all. We need to set out our “meets and bounds” and historically this meant a surveyor’s description of a parcel of real property, using carefully measured distances, angles, and directions, which results in what is called a “legal description” of the land, as distinguished from merely a street address or parcel number. Such a metes and bounds description is required to be recorded in official county record on a subdivision map and in the deeds when the boundaries of a parcel or lot are first drawn. We need to define our own “meets and bounds” for interaction with public servants so that they know exactly what they are getting involved in when they decide to violate our God given human rights.
The used car lot of your person
If a public servant is demanding that you perform an action, you need to make sure that they know what they are getting into right from the get go.
Let’s say you are pulled over on the side of the road, and you have done no harm to anyone. Yet there is a police officer demanding that you exit your automobile. You could tell the officer that you only contract on your terms and that if he is demanding that you perform a function of government, you need to get the “details” out of the way. Continue reading “Removing Presumptions of Law – Free Chapter from the BOOK!”
I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true. You must rebut the presumptions! For example; in the correspondence that I recently received from the Oregon Department of Justice, a reference was made to “You” several times within the letter. “You” is an interesting word, you see it can apply to plural individuals. When I say “Hey you!” in a room full of people, who exactly am I talking to? I could be talking to one of them, or all of them, so I am simply asking for this to be clarified and at the same time removing some key presumptions.
The following is the full text of the certified notice I am sending to the Attorney General for Oregon, Ellen F Rosenblum along with the original correspondence from one of her thugs, I don’t mess with lower officers… I go to straight to the boss.
Text of the notice I am sending:
USPS Certified Mail #7012 1010 0001 4118 6661
Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Dear Ellen F Rosenblum:
We, thank Ms Rosenblum for her correspondence which we received 05-09-2013.
There appears to be a mistake as although the included correspondence was sent to JAMES T GOODBAUDY the correspondence implies that an ORDER/JUDGEMENT was against “You”. Would Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity kindly confirm who “You” is, and/or forward this correspondence to You.
In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as a party in this matter. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT or Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me.
As I have no knowledge of who “You” and/or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT/DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT/DEPARTMENT ADDRESSING me as such? As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT/DEPARTMENT, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the TRUST have any SURETY in this matter? As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America corporation?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?
WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?
As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.
Notice: Failure by Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.
AUTHORIZED BY____________________________ SEAL _________ _
Hopefully they get back to me soon! They have ten days before their claims are satisfied in full. I will keep you posted, but in the meantime:
It is out of my hands now! I will let you know what happens!
Update: January 2016, this entire account has disappeared from my credit report.
Notice of Mistake – I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true. You must rebut the presumptions!