Lets start from the beginning

[Famspear]

Oh, and for purposes of the concept of a "bill of attainder," arguing that traffic court is "administrative" and not "judicial" probably does not work. The label used to describe a court is not always determinative.

If you really want to be confused, read the case law on the United States Tax Court (regarding what kind of court it is).

In 2010, Peter and Kathleen Kuretski filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court in connection with certain collection actions against them by the Internal Revenue Service. The case is case number 018545-10L, and the Tax Court rendered a decision against the Kuretskis on September 11, 2012; see T.C. Memo 2012-262.

After the decision was rendered, the Kuretskis asked the Tax Court to consider a new theory: whether section 7443(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, which gives the President the power to remove Tax Court judges for certain limited causes, was unconstitutional under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. On March 4, 2013, the Tax Court declined to address this argument, and the Court denied the Kuretski motion to vacate its earlier decision.

The Kuretskis appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in case number 13-1090. On June 20, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that section 7443(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, which gives the President the power to remove Tax Court judges for certain limited causes, does not infringe on the constitutional separation of powers. The Court of Appeals distinguished the Supreme Court's holding in a leading case called the Freytag case from the arguments raised by Peter and Kathleen Kuretski in this case. For purposes of the section 7443(f) analysis, the Court of Appeals concluded that while the Tax Court is an article I legislative court per the Freytag decision, the Tax Court judges do not exercise "legislative power" under Article I of the Constitution. See Kuretski v. Commissioner, case no. 13-1090, Opinion of the Court, pages 22-23 (June 20, 2014). The Court of Appeals also noted that the Tax Court does not exercise the judicial power of the United States under Article III. See page 23 of the June 20, 2014 opinion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Tax Court exercises its authority as part of the Executive Branch, but concluded that this opinion "is fully consistent with Freytag." (See p. 23 of the June 20, 2014 opinion). On November 26, 2014, Peter and Kathleen Kuretski filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (case no. 14-622), and are waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will hear the case.

But, as it currently stands, the Kuretski case seems to stand for the proposition that the U.S. Tax Court is not an Article III court, but is instead an Article I legislative court that, however, does not exercise Article I legislative power, but instead exercises Article II executive branch power.

Are we clear about that?

[AndyK]

PD:

Let's try something simple.

Assume a tourist from some foreign country decides to vacation in Florida, rents a car, blows a stop sign, and t-bones your car.

Has this person entered the social contract? Has he consented to be governed?

And, more importantly, how does this scenario differ from an event involving a person who is a resident of Florida and / or a citizen of the United States?

Every governmental unit in the world maintains sovereignty over its territory and every person within it. It doesn't matter if it is a repressive dictatorship like North Korea, a fundamentalist Islamic state, or a democracy.

ALL governments exist by cooperation and / or coercion. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that (just like any gambling casino) you either play by the house rules or you don't play.

If you have a problem with being governed by a representative government elected by majority vote, you have three options:

1 - Become politically active and get the government to change the rules to agree with what you want.

2 - Ignore the rules and take your lumps.

3 - Find another sandbox to play in.

[Pottapaug1938]

To add to what AndyK said -- if you follow the link I provided earlier so that you can see the case which LPC mentioned there, you'll see that a US court can have jurisdiction over someone who was kidnapped and brought forcibly to the US. I can't think of a better example of "I do not consent" than that.

[Patriotdiscussions]

That's just another of your misdirections, PD. On the tape you are talking about the registration of automobiles in Florida, by the state of Florida.

correct because I think the STATE OF FLORIDA is a political subdivision/franchise of corporate dc,I'm not going to go into all the research done to verify this as none of it matters to you

So, in effect, you are arguing that no government has the authority to regulate private property.



This is in direct contradiction to the real political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, whose state by the way, regulated private property!

A friend explains it better then I.

All land is NOT real estate.
..................
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
.................

Estate in land is "another thing". Estate is time in land or land for a time. Remember that.

................
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
................

Ownership is qualified (not absolute) when it is shared, or time is limited, or use is restricted.

Remember, estate is land for a time.

What is estate?

...................
"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263

"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
.......................
Estate is interest in "real and personal property", which boils down to qualified ownership.

What is NOT qualified ownership?
.....................
PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
.....................

Land and house that is absolutely owned is private property.

What Is Interest?
........................
INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but LESS THAN TITLE.
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.812
........................
TITLE - "The formal right of ownership of property..."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1485
.......................

Real estate / Real property refers to "lands, tenements, heriditaments" a person or tenant has NO formal right of ownership of property - only the advantages from it.

..................
PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
.................

Hmmm ... real property = real estate = estate.

Unpaid taxes on "real estate" can result in confiscation, whereas private property is defined as being protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. Sadly, most Americans record their "title deed" with the Real Estate registry. Coincidentally, there is no law compelling the recording of private property. But all "real estate" transactions may be recorded!

Ironically, most folks are misled to assume that they can only trade in real estate.
..............
FEE SIMPLE - ... an absolute estate... Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 615

DEED - A conveyance of realty. Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.414

REALTY - A brief term for real property or real estate. Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1264
..............

A "Title Deed" refers to realty, or real estate, which is an interest in real property, but only for a time, and is not a title to private property held absolutely.

To illustrate further:

From the Texas Constitution:
ARTICLE 8 - TAXATION AND REVENUE
Sec. 1. EQUALITY AND UNIFORMITY; TAX IN PROPORTION TO
VALUE; TAXATION OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY;
OCCUPATION TAXES; INCOME TAX; EXEMPTION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

(a) Taxation shall be equal and uniform.

(b) All real property and tangible personal property in this State, unless exempt as required or permitted by this Constitution, whether owned by natural persons or corporations, other than municipal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law.
The Texas constitution states that all real and personal property is subject to their taxing power.
...................
PROPERTY TAX - An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1218
..................

That definition agrees with the Texas constitution.

In short, the constitutional government of Texas has never, ever infringed upon the private property rights of the people. The constitution specifically lists estate as the property type subject to their power, their rules, and their taxes.

When I did a computer search on the words "private property", the only place private property is mentioned, is in the section dealing with water works. In Article 11- Sec.12, Texas Constitution
................
Sec. 12. EXPENDITURES FOR RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF SANITATION SEWER OR WATER LATERALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The legislature by general law may authorize a city or town to expend public funds for the relocation or replacement of sanitation sewer laterals or water laterals on PRIVATE PROPERTY if the relocation or replacement is done in conjunction with or immediately following the replacement or relocation of sanitation sewer mains or water mains serving the property. The law must authorize the city or town to affix, with the CONSENT OF THE OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY, a lien on the property for the cost of relocating or replacing the laterals on the property and must provide that the cost shall be assessed against the property with repayment by the property owner to be amortized over a period not to exceed five years at a rate of interest to be set as provided by the law. The lien may not be enforced until after five years have expired since the date the lien was affixed.
............

Without consent of the owner, the State or local government cannot affix a lien, nor assess against the property, nor compel repayment.
But you can bet that "real estate" would have a lien on it, in a New York minute.

In short, private property is still protected by government.

..............

The three facts that establish allodial title (according to the rules regarding auctions under admiralty / maritime) are:
1. Buyer has the right to own,
2. Buyer alienates title with lawful money,
3. No superior claim exists.
[1] To have the right to own, one should be of legal age (over 21), unimpaired, and competent. For an absolute right to own, it is now apparent that one should not be a participant in national socialism. All enumerated participants have pledged their property as collateral and became paupers at law to be eligible for entitlements (charity). Likewise, if one is exercising political liberty - voting and holding office - one must register their property as estate. (See earliest constitutions regarding the privilege to vote and hold office - limited to property owners who paid their taxes.)

[2] Alienation of title (the collection of facts that establish ownership) by lawful money (gold / silver dollars) also includes gift or bequest (if the previous owner held it absolutely). No mortgages allowed (two or more claimants makes ownership qualified).

[3] No superior claim can be established by giving due notice in the local county newspaper of record. Thirty days before the final transaction, place a legal notice (which should include a reply box number provided by the newspaper) wherein you describe the property and request that all claimants must come forward within 30 days or forever waive their claims. After 30 days, the newspaper will issue an affidavit to the claims or lack thereof.

You should investigate your own state's laws on the topic, but I suspect that they will not be much different than what I found in Georgia.

Official Code of Georgia Annotated states:
O.C.G.A. 44-2-1. Where and when deeds recorded; priority as to.
" Every deed conveying land shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county where the land is located. A deed may be recorded at any time; but a prior unrecorded deed loses its priority over a subsequent recorded deed from the same vendor when the purchaser takes such deed without notice of the existence of the prior deed."
The word "shall," on first reading, gives one the impression that it is mandatory. End of discussion. The proponents of private property and freedom are obviously ignorant, misled, and confused, say the pundits.

But there's another side to this word play...
" There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed."
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132
Is this not contradictory?

What makes BOTH the statute and the encyclopedia right?

What if "shall" didn't mean "shall"? Go review the following little section on law pertaining to mandatory versus directory statutes.
................
SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right of benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
Black's Law, Sixth ed., p.1375
..............

There's the key: shall (mandatory) means may (directory) if a private or public right is impaired by its interpretation as shall.

Clever politicos.... They write a "law" in a form to persuade you that you are obligated to perform to it, but in truth, they have not. You are under no obligation nor is there a consequence for not obeying a directory statute.

And there's more to it than meets the eyes.
" Sole purpose and effect of recording of deed is to afford third parties constructive notice of the existence of the deed.
- - - City Whsle. Co. v. Harper, 100 Ga.App. 151, 110 S.E. 2d 561 (1959)
The court ruling is clear and to the point. The sole purpose for recording deeds is to give notice.

Side note: "Deeds" refer to realty, which appears to not refer to private property.
REALTY - A brief term for real property or real estate.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p.1264

I do not claim infallibility. But to this point, it appears that the smokescreen of "realty" law has been used to distract Americans from awareness about private property law.

DUE NOTICE

In every county in the nation, there's one designated newspaper for "LEGAL NOTICES". If one pays for an ad, with a reply box, describing said property (geographical) and asking all claimants to come forth within 30 days or forever WAIVE their claims, one has complied with DUE NOTICE. After 30 days, the newspaper will issue an affidavit to that effect. (Hopefully, that no one came forward by sending a reply).

(This "legal service" is why the ads cost so much!)

At that point, one has established the FACT that no one has a claim, so your claim is now ABSOLUTE. You didn't RECORD it in the county's "real estate" registry. But you DID record a due notice in PUBLIC.

If you didn't register said property with the real estate clerk, nor the tax assessor, you aren't going to get a tax bill, either.

If you don't attach a United States Postal Service compliant mailbox, you won't even be bothered with "legal paper" (or junk mail).

That's how one can have a domicile in the United States of America (non-domestic), but NO address within the United States (domestic).

As a free inhabitant, non-resident to the forum (their State), you aren't a person liable, nor can you register property "in" the State. No state requires nor allows non-residents to record their property.

RECAPPING

In other words, 30 days (or more) before the transaction, place the legal notice. After one has evidence that no superior claim exists, then purchase said property with a minimum of 21 dollars U.S. (silver or gold) (Demonetization of silver only applies to the FEDERAL government - not the people), to preserve 7th amendment guarantees, have the BILL OF SALE ready, with the amount of real money (and "other valuable consideration" - such as green pieces of paper with pictures of presidents on them.), to be signed by seller, buyer, and two witnesses. Once the Bill of Sale is signed, that should suffice.

Check your own state's constitution or laws regarding anti-peonage clauses or statutes. The government usually will exempt some amount, so as to not compel any citizen or inhabitant to become a public charge (pauper).

Georgia State constitution, Art 1, Sec 1, Para 26

"Exemptions from levy and sale.

The General Assembly shall protect by law from levy and sale by virtue of any process under the laws of this state a portion of the property of each person in an amount of not less than $1,600.00 and shall have authority to define to whom any such additional exemptions shall be allowed; to specify the amount of such exemptions; to provide for the manner of exempting such property and for the sale, alienation, and encumbrance thereof; and to provide for the waiver of said exemptions by the debtor."

If this is the case, you gain no benefit by increasing the Sale Price above the minimum 21 dollars, for 7th Amendment protections. In Georgia's case, one could purchase 76 items, each $21, that would be immune under this exemption clause.

[JamesVincent]

Yes I know, the public school brainwashing of just taking someone at their word did not take hold. I need verified facts from many sources, not air from some guy on the Internet. Well unless I want my name on your forum of shame like the rest of those dimwits.

When I have satisfied my questions then I will go from there.

You are already on the wall of shame and dig yourself deeper with every sentence you write. You will never be satisfied until everyone agrees with your happy, little fantasy world, which will never happen. And, just like any Proper Sov'run, you spout off about the public school brainwashing. Hate to break it to you Buckwheat but every single person on this board went to a public school of some type. I don't remember a single one who was sent exclusively to private school or home schooled. And every single regular on here has explained the concept of jurisdiction to you, either in legal terms, with cites, or in common sense terms, with examples. Yet you argue that you need verified sources, not air from some guy on the internet.

Funny part about that inanity is that you've been caught copying and pasting your "research" directly out of Sov'run sites. Not once, not twice, but multiple times. I've seen at least twice that you either copied and pasted from Constitution dot org or copied from someone who did. Even down to the same spelling and grammatical mistakes. Arayder caught at least one that I remember and others have pointed out that the same failed arguments are to be found on other sites. Your entire diatribe comes directly from approved Sov'run sources, no other research involved. While you continue to belittle others, who happen to know quite a bit more then you, you continue to show your own ignorance and lack of even general comprehension skills. Your obvious dislike for anyone who is an actual authority, that does not agree with you, is, well, pretty obvious. And it shows more and more.

You will never be satisfied learning the answers because, like I said before and you admitted, you already know all the answers and want someone to verify them for you. If you don't like the answers, or if they don't agree with what you already know, you will just discard them. You have claimed to have all this learning yet cannot make a simple statement without either screwing it up grammatically or phonetically. You have yet to figure out the big secret of learning and you never will. I would love to go on and on but...... #seal clubbing.

[arayder]

That's just another of your misdirections, PD. On the tape you are talking about the registration of automobiles in Florida, by the state of Florida.

correct because I think the STATE OF FLORIDA is a political subdivision/franchise of corporate dc,I'm not going to go into all the research done to verify this as none of it matters to you

I submit you don't have any such "research" and are just flinging poop against the wall to see what sticks.

You are essentially arguing that some sort of ultra libertarian/sovcit political philosophy is not just the way things should be, but is the way thing are.

You are, as a fact of law and history, wrong. Dead wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm sure that PD has the "research", from sites which we have long since discredited; but he did us a big favor by omitting it, because I'm sure that none of us particularly care to have to discredit it one more time. For example, he probably thinks that the 1871 incorporation of the District Columbia as a municipal corporation makes DC exactly like a private corporation, and that the individual states are franchises of that corporation (or is it the United States corporation?).

He also falls into the trap of many poorly-educated legal "scholars", and relies on Black's Legal Dictionary as a primary source of legal precedent.

[Famspear]

A friend explains it better then [sic] I.

[snip long, rambling disjointed list of quotes from various sources, interspersed with rambling gibberish...]

Uh, no. Unfortunately, your friend does not even explain things "as well" as you do.

As the U.S. Tax Court put it so bluntly, so briefly, so eloquently, in referring to the goofy tax protester-tax denier ideas of ex-con Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, as reviewed by the Court in the case of Waltner v. Commissioner:

This is not analysis.

--Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35 (Feb. 27, 2014).

[AndyK]

Funny how PD is willing to dig deeply into (and misinterpret) major legal morasses, but has never been willing to answer a simple common-sense question.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So, tell us PD, did you win your traffic court case?

Yes sir I did,

If you believe individual consent is required why did you bother going to court and defending your case? Why did you believe the law applied to you that day?

[LPC]

A friend explains it better then [sic] I.

Followed by page after page of crap which has been copied-and-pasted from one of five different web pages which have posted the exact same crap over the last few years.

[wserra]

I'm not going to go into all the research done to verify this as none of it matters to you

You're absolutely correct. It doesn't.

If someone comes up to me with 30 pages of schematics for what he claims is a perpetual motion machine, those 30 pages won't matter to me either. I'll ask him to demonstrate that it works. If it doesn't perpetually move, I don't care what's in the schematics.

If someone comes up to me with 30 pages of legal hogwash, I'm not going to take the time to analyze that either. I'll ask him to demonstrate that it works. If it fails in the real world, I don't care what's in the 30 pages of hogwash.

Saves a lot of time, that way.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm also remembering the rationale in the Wnuck and Crain cases -- essentially, that to respond to certain crackpot arguments with "somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent" risks implying that those arguments have any merit, and will only generate more of the same in response.

[arayder]

So, tell us PD, did you win your traffic court case?

Yes sir I did,

If you believe individual consent is required why did you bother going to court and defending your case? Why did you believe the law applied to you that day?

Our new friend wasn't shy about claiming due process rights as recognized by what he calls the "corporations".

It's the usual freeman/sovcit legal cherry picking.

[LPC]

I'm not going to go into all the research done to verify this as none of it matters to you

Well, that won't be much of a change since you've haven't yet gone into any research to verify anything.

And, what Wes wrote, above.

[AndyK]

I'm not going to go into all the research done to verify this as none of it matters to you

Which is a blatant invitation to close off this discussion and give PD more time to troll the Internet for additional inane theories.

The lock clock is running.

[arayder]

Put the boy out of his misery.

[Pottapaug1938]

If PD had anything worthwhile to say, he'd have said it already. To give him credit, he did seem to make an attempt to explain his rationale behind this thread; but aside from that it's just been more of the same.

[arayder]

PD has something to say. He just won't say it.

Let's just end the thread and let the ole boy start another one in which he'll not talk about what he wants to talk about.

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD:

Let's try something simple.

Assume a tourist from some foreign country decides to vacation in Florida, rents a car, blows a stop sign, and t-bones your car.

Has this person entered the social contract? Has he consented to be governed?

no he has not entered into the social contract, however when you injury some ones person, rights or property, then common law applies even for non citizens.

And, more importantly, how does this scenario differ from an event involving a person who is a resident of Florida and / or a citizen of the United States?

none as common law is applicable to citizens and non citizens alike, including sovereigns.

Every governmental unit in the world maintains sovereignty over its territory and every person within it. It doesn't matter if it is a repressive dictatorship like North Korea, a fundamentalist Islamic state, or a democracy.

ALL governments exist by cooperation and / or coercion. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that (just like any gambling casino) you either play by the house rules or you don't play.

If you have a problem with being governed by a representative government elected by majority vote, you have three options:

1 - Become politically active and get the government to change the rules to agree with what you want.

2 - Ignore the rules and take your lumps.

3 - Find another sandbox to play in.

A refreshing take on the 3 options I never heard before, most enlightening sir.