Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Just to Help You Out a Bit

Discuss anything about life situation.

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby palani » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:56 pm

Jethro wrote:My guess is the witness would say she didn't know who suspended


Jethro wrote:those records -- and who knows who entered the information thereon -- contain an entry that says "SUSPENDED".

Conflicting testimony.

Jethro wrote:Correct the records.

Legal notice? Conflicting record in the county recorders office? Or just hypnosis of the judge?

Image
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

 

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby Shuftin » Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:15 pm

Let's put it a different way. Palani has a private piece of personal property, say a red wagon. Palani will loan or assign physical custody of his red wagon to Shuftin. Shuftin will sign an agreement with palani for the responsibility, protection, care, maintenance, and liability over/for palani's red wagon. One day Shuftin returns palani's red wagon back to palani. Shuftin says “I no longer want physical custody of your red wagon or the responsibility, protection, care, maintenance, and liability that comes with it. Here it is, take it back and keep it.”

Later palani takes a hammer and drives several nails into his red wagon. Palani then claims that “Shuftin is responsible and liable for what Me, Myself, and I have done with my own piece of private personal property.”

Shuftin replies “Whatever you, yourself, have done with your own piece of private personal property is none of my concern. I care not what you, yourself, have done with your own piece of private personal property. What is it to me what you, yourself, have done with your own piece of private personal property.”

Also, a photograph of a signature is not the actual signature. No more than a photograph of a dog becomes the actual dog itself. I can not feed nor pet the photograph of a dog. Lastly. A Driver's License only contains one signature, and that signature is photographed onto the Driver's License. The application for a State Driver's License only has one signature on it. The State never signs anything. Contract? No! Power over? How?

Returned piece of private personal property back to the State. Now what? I don't care what you do with it.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3844
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 186 time
Have thanks: 370 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby palani » Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:29 pm

Shuftin wrote: A Driver's License only contains one signature, and that signature is photographed onto the Driver's License.


Every drivers license I have seen has two scribbles that COULD be signatures. One is on the right side of the photo ... vertical. However, I don't know if this is a real man, woman or official. I always assumed if I summoned this entity I would not be disappointed by his failure to appear.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby Jethro! » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:07 pm

palani wrote:
Jethro wrote:My guess is the witness would say she didn't know who suspended


Jethro wrote:those records -- and who knows who entered the information thereon -- contain an entry that says "SUSPENDED".

Conflicting testimony.


Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter. So long as the records show "SUSPENDED", it will be presumed correct, because there will be no other evidence to the contrary on the record. You could testify it's not your signature in the records to rebut that presumption, but then you would waive your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself in a criminal matter.

palani wrote:
Jethro wrote:Correct the records.

Legal notice? Conflicting record in the county recorders office? Or just hypnosis of the judge?


Virtually every administrative agency has a duty to produce copies of records they have about you at your request -- often called an "open records request", "privacy act request" or the like. They also have a procedure to correct erroneous records. Even if they didn't, you could likely get the records corrected through a mandamus or declaratory judgment action (if they refuse to correct them).

So if you suspect some agency has erroneous records about you, why not get them and examine them? palani, I completely agree with your statement at the start of this thread:

Yours is the only signature. You are the only one who can enter a document into existence. By saying 'That is my signature' you actually bring the document to life .. you share some of your life force with it.


If that's true, so must the converse also be true: By saying "That is NOT my signature" you kill a document that was otherwise presumed to be alive (and attached to YOU).

Why not put that into an affidavit and send it to them with instructions to correct their records and destroy or void the account nun pro tunc that the "non-signature" created?
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 204 time
Have thanks: 175 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby Jethro! » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:13 pm

Shuftin wrote:Also, a photograph of a signature is not the actual signature.


True, but so long as the actual signature is somewhere, and you don't contest it is your signature, then it doesn't matter whether the signature is a facsimile.

Shuftin wrote:A Driver's License only contains one signature, and that signature is photographed onto the Driver's License. The application for a State Driver's License only has one signature on it. The State never signs anything. Contract? No! Power over? How?
[/quote]

Sounds like a pledge. A pledge can certainly be binding.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 204 time
Have thanks: 175 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby palani » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:28 pm

Jethro! wrote:If that's true, so must the converse also be true: By saying "That is NOT my signature" you kill a document that was otherwise presumed to be alive (and attached to YOU).

Why not put that into an affidavit and send it to them with instructions to correct their records and destroy or void the account nun pro tunc that the "non-signature" created?


See my thread on Jurisprudence and Persons. Traps generally work one way. Once you have entered the trap there is no way for you to open it yourself. I believe an act of legislature would be required to unlatch the trap and open the cage.

Same statement is true of checking yourself into an asylum. You might self-diagnose yourself and voluntarily commit yourself to a rubber room but someone is going to have to check you out and it is their signature on the line then ... should you be inclined to rob a seven eleven or bark at a police dog.

In a recent hospital stay (not mental) no special condition was attached to my extended visit but a test was required to obtain their consent to leave.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby palani » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:40 pm

I hadn't really intended this thread to go the direction of debating drivers licenses. Here are some tips when it comes to originals vs copies

A little secret? One Dollar Fox stamp. You can get them for $3-$5 on ebay. For $10 you can get an official lens from the postal service. The Fox stamp has a couple holograms on them. The stamps are useful for several reasons.

1) the dollar symbol has two rails ... actually a dollar ... as opposed to most stamps that say FOREVER or just have a number.

2) the hologram ... you fix it to any document you want to remember as AN ORIGINAL. Then you use the magic decoder lense when asked to verify your signature .. if it is a copy then you get no hologram.

3) back to the dollar .. that is CONSIDERATION. Lacking CONSIDERATION you have no access to a COURT OF LAW. Without this all you get is a COURT OF EQUITY where losing is considered HONORABLE.

Another trick ... security paper. You can get a pack at STAPLES for under $10. When you print anything on it and sign it you have an ORIGINAL. If anyone copies it the copy will display the words UNAUTHORIZED COPY. Let's see what they do about THAT at the recorders office. Are they violating your COPYRIGHT when they record it?
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby Jethro! » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:41 pm

palani wrote:
Jethro! wrote:If that's true, so must the converse also be true: By saying "That is NOT my signature" you kill a document that was otherwise presumed to be alive (and attached to YOU).

Why not put that into an affidavit and send it to them with instructions to correct their records and destroy or void the account nun pro tunc that the "non-signature" created?


See my thread on Jurisprudence and Persons.


Could you provide a link to that thread please?

palani wrote:Traps generally work one way. Once you have entered the trap there is no way for you to open it yourself.


Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the locking mechanism? In "this state", that mechanism appears to be solely your signature, meaning your expression of consent. If they never had your signature, then you never entered the trap.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 204 time
Have thanks: 175 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby palani » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:49 pm

Jethro! wrote:Could you provide a link to that thread please?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5085

palani wrote:Traps generally work one way. Once you have entered the trap there is no way for you to open it yourself.


Jethro! wrote:Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the locking mechanism? In "this state", that mechanism appears to be solely your signature, meaning your expression of consent. If they never had your signature, then you never entered the trap.


Should I ever decide to go crazy and walk into a bar and yell "I'll take on the ugliest M-F in this here bar" I could only hope that everyone present is sober enough to realize they don't want to be classified as the ugliest M-F there.

If it is not your signature then what 'cha doin' sittin' in court? Abate the nuisance by mail and get on with your life.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 163 time
Have thanks: 468 time

Re: Just to Help You Out a Bit

Postby Jethro! » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:07 pm

palani wrote:If it is not your signature then what 'cha doin' sittin' in court? Abate the nuisance by mail and get on with your life.


If it were only that easy. Problem is they say (or presume) it's your signature and drag you into their world. Remember, that (presumed) signature is admissible evidence per Rules of Evidence, and if that's the only evidence on the record, your goose is likely cooked.

I propose to correct the records, then their admissible evidence will reflect that all the parties are in agreement. The fight is over before it's begun.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 204 time
Have thanks: 175 time

PreviousNext

Return to Living and Survival

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

suspicion-preferred