NO Law Requires You To Register or Pledge Your Private Automobile | Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration
By Justin Deschamps
There is a part of our world integrated by co-creative consciousness, a grand undertaking of many individuals all working together to effect a goal of epic proportions. This achievement of cooperation by the hands of a few dedicated individuals has transformed the planet and touched nearly everyone’s life to some degree.
The system I am speaking of is the legal system, the corporately framed and centrally maintained tapestry of treaties; agreements and contracts leading all the way back to none other then Rome. In past articles we discussed how the Vatican and it’s sitting Pope stand as the central nexus of corporate and legal power on Earth, under the Roman Curia ‘law’ system.
Related Pope ‘Ruler of the World’ to go after War Criminals?
Related The Underworld Death Dealing Practices Of The Elite | Birth, Marriage and Death Estate Are Seized and Traded By The Government
The Pope, and the office it has maintained over the centuries, has slowly enveloped the entire planet into a series of trusts enacted between 1350 and 1600 AD. These documents claim the Church and its high priest the pontiff, as the supreme ruler and trustee to the creator, reaching back to the alleged creation of the church by Peter during the times of Jesus. Once these trusts, known as the Cestui Que accounts were created, they merely needed to begin dispensing the ‘benefits’ of the trust to the people named in it, which in this case is all life on the planet Earth.
Shortly after their ratification, the Jesuit brotherhood began spreading across the globe ‘civilizing’ native peoples everywhere. Some claim that Christopher Columbus’ expedition was a Vatican led enterprise to conquer the people there and enfold them into the trust system.
Related Occult History and Legend of Christopher Columbus | Did The Vatican Papal Bulls Enable The Conquering Of The New World?
The following is a compilation of articles by Trent Goodbaudy, a pioneer in the freedom movement. He has been successfully traveling without a registration or drivers license for years now.
He was recently pulled over and had a very interesting exchange with the police, which I think reveals how close we are towards a grand shift in consciousness.
At first the police were combative, attempting to coerce Goodbaudy into a commercial contract; a citation or ticket. But after he politely explained to the police the lawful frauds that the state is committing through and by their actions, they revealed themselves to be ‘tea partiers’ and keenly interested in the things Goodbaudy was saying.
It seems that encased within their corporate costume was a real human being seeking the truth in their own way. I don’t know what will ultimately push us through a grand shift of consciousness, but knowing that at least these two individuals are interested in the frauds of our age is encouraging.
The remaining articles are elaborations on the legalities of a driver’s license and what the US statutory code actually says in that regard. Wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that there are volumes of statutes and case history supporting the lawful right to travel without taxation or harassment? Contained herein is a list of cases and codes that detail how we only need to dispel the presumptions of the corporate state in order to actually live in freedom. This can be enforced by a growing body of educated and active individuals.
The government presumes that we are employees, and it is only these entities which are subject to the codes of conduct for agents of corporatized UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Clearly if this one man can forge ahead alone, we can unify collectively and spread these ideas far and wide, expanding on and building off of the lawful concepts already codified within the system itself.
Source – Freedom From Government
Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration
A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I don’t have a plate, I knew he didn’t have a warrant.
I know I didn’t commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an “Arrest by Consent”. I continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said “Pull over right here” through his loud speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated “pull over right now”, I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.California highway patrol gets it’s authority from the people!
The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked “Am I under arrest?”, he said “No”, I said, “So I’m free to go?”, he said “no”, I said “So I’m under arrest”, this time he said “yes”.
I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for my drivers license. I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the bill of sale to the truck, and my proof of insurance. He went back to his car for about 5 minutes.
A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said “no”. I again said “So I can leave?” he said “no, you’re detained”. He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but was playing tough guy.
He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why the truck wasn’t registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care, and ‘tea partiers’ (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.
I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed “channels of Interstate commerce” by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a “Motor Vehicle” was a “Commercial Vehicle”…we were waiting for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.
Eventually, they hand me a citation with “none” marked in the DL location, and “none” in the License Plate location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said “yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail.”
This now made the signature “under duress”. I wrote “under duress” and signed my name next to the ticket. This is where I was surprised, the Officer said “hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible.” Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued. I have written “refused for fraud” across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any warrants, apparently not!
NOTICE and DEMAND ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185 California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road Dublin, CA 94568-3310
CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559
RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Violation Number: 60435 LJ
This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or submitted by Officer B. Knudsen. Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS; 1) Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence, 2) As a party to this action, I hereby void this contract and notice to appear, and 3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby withdrawn. If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.
Non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460 See: Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516 (Enclosed) Copy of Notice to Appear______________________________________
Source – Freedom From Government
NO Law Requires You To Register / Pledge Your Private Automobile
A Private automobile is not required by any law, code or statute to be registered. Any registering (pledge) of Private automobile to any agency is strictly voluntary. Any recordation / contract you or a Dealership has done was a fraudulently conveyed act as the registering agency/automobile Dealer told you that you must register your Private Property. The voluntary pledge that was done without just compensation is usually done through fraud, deceit, coercion and withholding of facts, which can only be construed as fraud and unjust enrichment by agency as well as a willful malicious act to unjustly enrich the recording agency and its public servants.
If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. – Samuel Adams , our former president.
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, – ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York , 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Police power, Due Process ) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S.356.
Constitution Guarantees And Protects The Right To Travel
But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value. ( Statute ) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.
Constitutional Law § 101 – right to travel – 5. The nature of the Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one state to another is a basic right under the constitution.
Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7. If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson , 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322 . ‘ ” ” ‘
Source – Freedom From Government
Duties of Government Officials
Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared:
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breads contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face.”
The information created and surrounding the stricti juris doctrine regarding a particular license which may, or may not, be represented by and revealed within the contents and control of a license agreement “but must be revealed upon demand, and failure to do so is concealment , a withholding of material facts (the enducing, contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and are bound to reveal.” Dolcater v. Manufacturers S Traders Trust Co., D.C.N.Y., 2F.Supp. 637, 641.
Penalty Under The Law
Under USC Title 42 §1986 . Action for neglect to prevent . . ., it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done. . . and having power to prevent or aid in preventing . . . Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured… and; The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts”. As the means of “knowledge” if it appears that the individual had notice or information of circumstances which would put him on inquiry, which, if followed, would lead to “knowledge”, or that the facts were presumptively within his knowledge, he will have deemed to have had actual knowledge of the facts and may be subsequently liable for any damage or injury. (Public Officials have been given “knowledge of the facts” as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against the people.)
It would be unconstitutional for an officer to coerce one to waive a fundamental right: “waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady , 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell , 160 F.2d 304 (6 th Cir. 1947)”. And that the agency committed fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspired by; Unconscionable “contract” – “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept “; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. and;”Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized.” Alexander v.Bosworth (1915), 26 C.A. 589, 599, 147 P.607. And therefore; “Failure to reveal the material facts of a license or any agreement is immediate grounds for estoppel.” Lo Bue v. Porazzo , 48 Cal.App.2d 82, 1 19, p.2d 346, 348.
The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contract us that binds the Declarant with the CITY/STATE agency, is void for fraud ab initio, since the de facto CITY/STATE cannot produce the material fact (consideration inducement) or the jurisdictional clause (who is subject to said statute) . (SEE: Master / Servant [Employee] Relationship — C.J.S .) — ” Personal, Private, Llberty “-
Since the “consideration” is the “life blood” of any agreement or quasi-agreement, (contractus) “… the absence of such from the record is a major manifestation of want of jurisdiction , since without evidence of consideration there can be no presumption of even a quasi-contract us . Such is the importance of a “consideration.” Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson , 7 W & S (Pa.) 317 So without a Contract (no recording of the M.C.O.) or consideration there is no DMV / government etc. jurisdiction as the property does not “reside” in the colorable fictitious territory as evidenced in Supreme Court cite below:
In Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox , 298 U.S. 193 (1936) it states: Property taxes can be on tangibles or intangibles. In order to have a situs for taxation (a basis for imposing the tax), tangible property (physical property) must reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority, and intangibles . . .
Under USC Title 42 §1982 . Property rights of citizens further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take land because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governments / agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in your real private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (if your land has no government grant /funding or is not a subsidized government project, then agencies have neither). DEMAND any public servant/said agencies to provide the legal document that allows any federal or state agency to supercede and/or bypass Title 42 USC §1982 and/or §1441. Title 42 §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights further protects Declarant’s private property. The State cannot diminish rights of the people. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. ‘ ‘
“To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (192 5), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.
“A state MAY NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted (sic) by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCH v PENNSYLVANIA , 319 US 105. “… THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY”. McCULLOUGH v MARYLAND, 4 Wheat 316.
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self-evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which exists by its authority or its permission.” McCullough v Maryland , 17 U.S. [4 Wheat] 316 (1819). ‘
U.S. adopted Common laws of England with the Constitution. Caldwell vs. Hill , 178 SE383 (1934).
To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law , would not be the law of the land. ( Jury) Hoke v. Henderson , 1 5, N.C. 1 5 25 AM Dec 677.
“The phrase ‘ common law ‘ found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty , and maritime jurisprudence.” Parsons v. Bedford , et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9.
Posted on June 7, 2019
by David Robinson
Well, I’m walking the walk …
.Funny things started to happen quick … After the shop put it on, I went to take a picture (grabbed the wrong phone, it was dead) I heard a horn blow, looked and a deputy was driving by (oh boy), came back out from paying, and the deputy was pulling up, then he backed up and wrote something down then pulled back up … (oh boy, the only thing to do is go flush, DAMN IT!)
Ok, can’t sit here all day, so I backed around so he could see the back, as I pulled away I looked back and he was looking, grinning, and he waved! Ok, BREATHING….went about 4 miles then poof, got another behind me, he followed about 2 miles then passed me in a hurry …. My nerves are shot! Later I traveled to my daughter’s but spotted a roadblock …YES, I DIPPED OUT!
I’ve already had a heart attack and enough stress for one day!
But I’m ready …
LEGAL NOTICE AFFIDAVIT
County of Baldwin
State of Georgia
Notice to the principal is notice to the agent
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal
Be it known to all that I, Weyman P Cochran, own a 1994 Toyota Camry Vin #JT2GK12E4R0015601, it is private property personal effects, consumer goods, not equipment. As per UCC 9-109 (1)
Under USC Title 42 §1982. Property rights of citizens …, further evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take land because DOES NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governments/agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in your real private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (if your land has no government grant/funding or is not a subsidized government project, then agencies have neither). DEMAND any public servant/said agencies to provide the legal document that allows any federal or state agency to supersede and/or bypass Title 42 USC §1982 and/or §1441. Title 42 §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights …., further protects Declarant’s private property.
“… In one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois,
94 U. S. 113, [24 L. Ed. 77], it is said: ‘When, therefore, one devotes
his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to
be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the
interest he has thus created.’ But so long as he uses his property for
private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the
public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its
“The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics,
determine whether it should be classified as “consumer goods” under UCC 9-109(1) or “equipment” under UCC 9-109(2).” Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
“Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden
v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273
A.2d 198 (1971).
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, – ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. And;
“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may”
exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis
means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
As far as having it registered …
“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, …it is NOT a vehicle that is REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or profit, and house cars, are not commercial vehicles”, “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle” and; NOT the type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And;
“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a by reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.
What must happen …
In view of this rule, a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them. State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the _____ day of _______ in the year __________ by
Weyman Paul Cochran
W/O PREJUDICE UCC 1-308
My commission expires ___________
Threatened with foreclosure?
Know who has a right to foreclosure and who does not.
Learn the things you can prove to win.
Know how to prove them.
Prove just one of them, and you stop foreclosure!
Connecting the Dots.
Vital Empowering Information You Can Apply.
Support Research and Development Efforts with a Monthly Subscription.
One Time Donation
You Choose the Amount