That car was paid for with sweat equity. The dealership and the dmv conspired
to steal your legal title.
Notice of claim!
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message --------
On Apr 16, 2021, 3:57 PM, Russell Lee wrote:
This might seem off-point but has anyone been checking these public officers
for their oath of office? If they have no oath of office, they're
impersonating a public officer and are liable in their personal capacity.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:44 PM jonbondo@xxxxxxxxx <jonbondo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
if you auto was titled it still is and ever registered . even though not
currently.. it belongs to the state and it is not household goods.
the 1817 may be about the man/woman jurisdiction. claim; but i do not think
it includes ones Auto. so i say NO its not your household goods; you are not
safe.. .
if you cover the vin. and you are not in the database.. they may assume its
stolen. or you may have to prove it isn't..
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:58 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
That the king of England, as sovereign of the nation, is said to be
independent of all, and subject to no one but God: and his crown is stiled
imperial, on purpose to assert that he owes no kind of subjection to any
potentate on earth. No compulsory action can be brought against him, even
in his own courts. That a sovereign, when in a foreign country, is always
considered by civilized nations, as exempt from its jurisdiction,
privileged from arrests, and not subject to its laws. Hence this inference
was drawn, that the court having no jurisdiction over Virginia, all its
process against that state, must be coram non judice, and consequently
void. 1 Vatt.P. 2. 133. 2. Vatt. 158. 1 Blackft. 141. 5 Bac. 450. It was
then observed, that there being no instance in our law books, of any
process against a sovereign, it was proper to consider the rules of law
relative to process against their representatives. [* * *]
That the true reason of the minister's exemption from process is the
independence and sovereignty of the person he represents. And although by
engaging in trade, he may so far divest himself of his public character, as
to subject these goods to attachment, yet in every case where he represents
his master, his property is sacred. But a sovereign cannot subject himself
by implication: he must do it expressly. M'Carty v. Nixon et al, 1 U.S. 77
(1784)
JOHNSON, J. (the supreme Court of the United States):The right of
jurisdiction is essentially connected to, or rather identified with, the
national sovereignty [We the People! ]. To part with it is to commit a
species of political suicide. In fact, a power to produce its own
annihilation is an absurdity in terms. It is a power as utterly
incommunicable to a political as to a natural person. FLETCHER v. PECK, 10
U.S. 87 (1810)
BARTLEY, C. J. (Supreme Court of Ohio) dissented: There is no tribunal
before which the sovereign can be arraigned, his conduct examined, his
errors and delinquencies detected, those errors corrected, and he punished.
PIQUA STATE BANK OF OHIO v. KNOUP, 6 Ohio St. 342 (1856).
Justice BREWER (Supreme Court of the United States) dissenting: The
government of the United States is one of limited and delegated powers. It
takes nothing from the usages or the former action of European governments,
nor does it take any power by any supposed inherent sovereignty. There is a
great deal of confusion in the use of the word 'sovereignty' by law
writers. Sovereignty or supreme power is in this country vested in the
people, and only in the people. [***] When, therefore, power is exercised
by congress, authority for it must be found in express terms in the
constitution, or in the means necessary or proper for the execution of the
power expressed. If it cannot be thus found, it does not exist. FONG YUE
TING v. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
Law of Nations, Book 2 Article 132: "God has created heaven for himself and
his saints, and has given the earth to mankind, intending it for the
advantage of the poor as well as of the rich. The roads are for their use,
and God has not subjected them to any taxes." [a license is a tax and a
automobile is household goods.]
25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163. "No State government entity has the
power to allow or deny passageon the highways, byways, nor waterways
transporting his vehicles andpersonal property for either recreation or
business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety,
caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege
requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 12:47 AM ejartz <ejartz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you a person, is the vin on a motor vehicle or a household good or
consumer good?
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:23 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
? go for it all
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:31 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am thinking only cover the ViN if no plates on car and no registration
Get [Outlook for Android](https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg)
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:39:49 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: ok to remove or cover
VIN of personal property?
It’s legal to cover it
On Apr 15, 2021, at 12:26 PM, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2019/title-2c/section-2c-17-6/](https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcodes%2Fnew-jersey%2F2019%2Ftitle-2c%2Fsection-2c-17-6%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cd381d91f67384a59c5d408d90044ba00%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637541117438894432%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=pb8LiuLh8%2Fl30QaFCZxTpwqhMDySOOLHmMZ4v8%2FSzIo%3D&reserved=0)
