Have someone else drive. Problem solved! :D

Ha!! How does this takes care of surety, and accounting? This is "sovereign citizen" "patriot movement" crap. UCC? (Please see UCC for Idiots, from Admiral Scott). That "no jurisdiction" card, played with their own rules. It's like Russian roulette! :D

OK, 1st Reserve ALL rights, do not use ucc-308, 2nd, state on the record that you are not the surety, or defendant, ask if there are any objects, 3rd, you will also state that you do not consent to the proceedings, jurisdiction and venue of the Court, and Last ask the judge if he has a contract or agreement before the court in dispute...this is the basics 101...and nothing more...

state that you do not consent to the proceedings Me, I just don't UNDERSTAND these proceedings... :P

Before I can AFFIRM to consent, or to NOT consent, I need to UNDERSTAND what it is I am consenting to, or NOT consenting to....

I did all the Notices that I learned in Sui Juris. Well they ignored them...raised my ticket from $1266 to $1966 with a failure to appear and a hold on my drivers license.....

Have you asked if you could use the surety/security of the person to discharge that charge ? :/

not yet....I was not able to use the Notice of Mistake from this group...I used a different notice process which they ignored...added an additional $600 to the already enormous $1200 and put a hold on my Drivers License

Russian roulette!

And what was the mistake in regards to that traffic ticket, Kawni Gilroy ?

I was caught in a speed trap....bogus!!! a cop sits at the bottom of a hill every morning and gets people one by one as they come down off the hill..I was going 10 miles over the posted sign for all of 3 seconds... and I didnt have my current insurance card with me so he wrote me up for that as well....after he threatened to arrest me for not giving him my ID...I asked him if I was committing a crime when he said he was citing me and he said "yes" i then asked if he was sure about that and he said if I didnt give him my drivers license he was taking me to jail....I returned the ticket within 3 days to the Courthouse with the following hand written on it, Refused for Cause, Without Prejudice, Without Recourse, Non Assumpsit....

I got the ticket amount called bail here in the mail....$1266.00 bullshit charges on a bogus ticket. I then sent in a Protest for Non Acceptance and a Notary Default Judgment with a Claim letter......they sent me a failure to appear and put a hold on my drivers license. I was not able to do the Notice of Mistake from this group because I had not studied it properly and I also provided my ID to the cop because of his threats to me

And, what was the mistake ? :-\

She did not used the Notice of Mistake, Pete.

Maxim of Law: An AFFIRMATION is TRUTH IN COMMERCE, unless rebutted.

Legal=Commerce Commerce=Surety+Accounting

do you know anyone in the group that has had any luck using the Karl Lentz common law method?

:O

You should try the "Kraft Dinner" method :-P

*sigh*

Peanut-butter theory?

The elusive peanut cow strikes again.

no but I have tried the "rhythm method", it quite fun and works very well!!! :P

Works on amphibians also https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152224698206534

Good Morning Folks, Ryan is the Kentucky AG, we have been debating issues over two years now, he has given me many insights on how the government will respond to disputes and issues. I know you folks have no love for such persons, however that said, keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. The debate and issue is the Birth Certificate and driver's license. I was denied a driver's license by the KY DMV....this is his response and my response....not a word since I sent this. Ryan Asst. KY AG stated: Well they are operating on the wrong information. You have a birth certificate and you are a citizen of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Ryan You are stating the (BC) is mine...,Alrighty then....lets do it your way my friend, but I don't think your going to like it.... The next time I go to Court for this traffic case and they ask for the NAME, I'm Going to sound off with "United States". Administrator/Judge, Excuse me who do you represent in this matter? Administrator, I represent the United States in this matter, Administrator, the Kentucky Attorney General has issued a "Legal opinion and determination" that this document contains this man's personal and private information, and that it is in FACT a public document that belongs to the United States. Are there any objections to what I just stated? Administrator, I am here to protect and defend the United States the holder-in-due-course of that document. I am acting as the Registered-Agent and have an Office and address for service of process for the United States, concerning that document. Are there any objections to what I just stated? Administrator, The United States, places Exhibit A Kentucky Birth Certificate before the court. Administrator, This document is placed into the Court record and given to the Court as Fact, Evidence and Proof that the United States holds Ownership and is in FACT the holder-in-due-course, of that public record. Are there any objections to what I just stated? Administrator, the Commonwealth Prosecutor has and is making false claims and statements, further this Bar Attorney is acting like an idiot, further he is making claims against the United States, and entity he has taken an oath to protect and defend. Why is the Commonwealth Attorney bringing claims against a interest belonging to the United States? What Facts does the Commonwealth Attorney have supporting his "legal opinion or Determinations" that this document belongs to this man and Not the United States? Ryan, You have given my some Grand Ideas on how to proceed with this issue and ownership of this document, Thank You. OK that was fun, now lets move on to the Real Facts brother, If I had such a thing called a (BC) that would have to mean that thing is my property not the states. That is a Fact. What the hell is the State doing with MY (BC) it if it is indeed mine? How can I even have it if the State actually has it? Are you suggesting one document can be in two different places being held by two different entities all at the same moment in time? Ryan, as you are well aware, I only deal with facts and positive law mate, not "Legal Opinion or Determinations". And those fact don't support you legal opinions. FACT: There is a BC that exists. We're in agreement with this fact FACT: It is in fact held by the State in the State's custody. We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: The State having custody of it makes it impossible for me to have it.We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: Therefore, this man has no such thing as BC and there are no facts to support that I have or own such a thing. We're in agreement with this fact. More facts to look at, FACT: the State does in fact have and hold custody of, does not have my signature on it. We're in agreement with this fact. FACT:This man is not a signatory to it. We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: This man did not create The Birth Certificate. We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: This man did not authorize anyone to create it. We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: It does in fact have nothing at all to do with this man.We're in agreement with this fact. FACT: On the other hand, the two signatories on that document are in fact by two people who are in fact agents of the State and who did in fact sign that document for the State. We're in agreement with this fact. Now can you provide any facts to the contrary or to show that I actually have that document when in fact the State has that document? WHO OR WHAT owns all the "interests" in that "legal entity/fiction" Who is the holder-in-due-course of that "legal fiction"? FACT: United States owns all the interests in it. We're in agreement with this fact. Fact: United States received the interest in it and United States used that interest in it to support its government and military. We're in agreement with this fact. These are facts. Without that interest there could be no such thing as United States because there would be nothing for the United States to support its existence with. WHY are those agents of that local government bringing claims against interest belonging to the United States? Ryan, am I going to have to Act like a Bounty Hunter and issue a 14th amendment bounty on those people? Have all their personal assets seized to repay the public debt they are creating for the sole purpose of embezzling funds for their own personal profit and gain? Or would they rather correct their mistake in this matter and I will forgive them? What really ticks me off with all of this, IS I am well within my rights to do what I am doing. I am not asking for anything that any Man or Woman can't claim for themselves...even you could claim these rights....however you would have to give up your office and job to do it...the point being you could do it, if that was your wish. Chase

Re:"You have a birth certificate and you are a citizen of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Kentucky." - No. Why are you wasting time with this douche? He's just distracting you, and running you in circles. This is a man who LIES FOR A LIVING. He is paid with MONEY TAKEN BY FORCE FROM OTHERS. This is not a "kindred spirit" or a "brother"! This is a sub-human who harms others for his OWN BENEFIT. YOU WILL NEVER GET A STRAIGHT, CONCISE, HONEST ANSWER FROM HIM! EVER! HE THINKS IT'S HIS RIGHT TO IMPOSE OWNERSHIP ON YOU. STOP WASTING TIME. THIS MAN CANNOT BE FIXED. THIS IS WHAT HE IS.

This is all good but let's be "business/commerce" here. Too personal. Affirmations are better.

Scott's answers are always simple and concise. The reality is the answers are all in plain sight.. However, we go looking everywhere else when it is DIRECTLY in front of you. .

Good Morning Scott, Trust me I know who and what this fellow is, two years of debates have well proven his opinions are worthless in the light of FACTS or Congressional record. That said, he has given me a very good insight on how the government will react to issues and disputes....priceless! Because of these debates, I can stop things long before they happen, I know how a prosecutor will react to issues and disputes. Not to mention, I've use the stuff you have given, which has caused him to retreat on a few issues, or not to answer...again priceless!

Gov`t leaders are lawyers protecting current and future lawyers

Exactly. Communicating with these parasites accomplishes NOTHING. EVER. NONE of you can show me an example refuting that. NONE OF YOU.

Oh fuck you tell me !!! :D

They will engage in dialogue as long as they can drag it out. Their goal is to WASTE TIME. THAT IS ALL.

^ Correct! I have wasted too much time on this crap.

If they happen to have something IMPORTANT to offer, they will certainly do it through registered mail, I guess !! :D

They might even send a limousine with flashers on its top.... :D

Or roof....whatever... :/

Yeah, they go out of their way for the PERSON. Customer Service!

Section 50 Canada Evidence Act............................................. Right of refusal to answer or produce document 50. (1) Any person examined under any order made under this Part has the like right to refuse to answer questions tending to criminate himself, or other questions, as a party or witness, as the case may be, would have in any cause pending in the court by which, or by a judge whereof, the order is made. Laws about witnesses to apply � video links etc. (1.1) Despite subsection (1), when a party or witness gives evidence under subsection 46(2), the evidence shall be given as though they were physically before the court or tribunal outside Canada, for the purposes of the laws relating to evidence and procedure but only to the extent that giving the evidence would not disclose information otherwise protected by the Canadian law of non-disclosure of information or privilege. Contempt of court in Canada (1.2) When a party or witness gives evidence under subsection 46(2), the Canadian law relating to contempt of court applies with respect to a refusal by the party or witness to answer a question or to produce a writing or document referred to in subsection 46(1), as ordered under that subsection by the court or judge. Nature of right (2) No person shall be compelled to produce, under any order referred to in subsection (1), any writing or other document that he could not be compelled to produce at a trial of such a cause. R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 50; 1999, c. 18, s. 90.http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-5.html

this applies in regards to the evidence of surety Documents to be admitted in evidence 54. (1) Any document that purports to have affixed, impressed or subscribed on it or to it the signature of any person authorized by any of paragraphs 52(a) to (d) to administer, take or receive oaths, affidavits, solemn affirmations or declarations, together with their seal or with the seal or stamp of their office, or the office to which the person is attached, in testimony of any oath, affidavit, solemn affirmation or declaration being administered, taken or received by the person, shall be admitted in evidence, without proof of the seal or stamp or of the person�s signature or official character.