ok to remove or cover VIN of personal property? Yes, it is perfectly fine to
cover someone else branding on your property. YOU can set your vehicle on fire,
if you wish. You can cover the VIN or not, as you wish. Your property, your
choice.
Check out what I did to my vehicle. I hope this answers his question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czK7sHtSAaI
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 03:57:04 PM EDT, Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
They have more than one oath. Oath to the state. And oath to the bar. The bar
is higher which is an oath to the crown
On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:17 PM, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charley,
if the Court is FAKE, then how can the Oath of a Judge, Magistrate, Police
Officer, or Court Administrator be REAL or have teeth?
Please explain what the Oath to "support" the Constitution of the United States
and to this State means.
What exactly does the Oath that is signed cover, govern, impact, or have any
validity towards or to whom?
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Charley
Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 6:16 AM
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? Forestwhat is significant about bills of attainder is
everything goverment does is a bill of attainder. They create rules and
regulations against you. They create a fake court so you never have a trial.
The trial is free citizen's deciding if you caused injury. Not their
legislative court. Another constutional issue that government violates.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:14 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DonArticle 1, section 8, clause 17 states; jurisdiction of the United States is
land it purchases. Then goes on and gives specific things they can own. If they
buy other things they own it but do not have jurisdicton. That clause like many
in the constitution is an enumerated right. Meaning it am applies to everyone.
Not your, hands of. Article 1, section 10, clause 1 a bit more difficult to
understand. When they stole our gold government became a private for-profit
Corp. Congressional record March 1993 vol. 33 and Clearfield Doctrine 1943 back
it up. The problem is pretending to be government and a private business
contacting is fraud. Some would say mafia characteristics
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:00 PM Don Mashak <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Charley....
Can you give everyone the nuts and bolts of government have no Constitutional
Authority....
Just like 2 paragraphs, outlining the logical proof...?
I am just trying to grasp this and make it part of my perspective of reality.
And is this related to being a "free person", "State National"
Thanks in advance.
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended only
for the use of the person or entity named above and is privileged and
confidential. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
other than to the person or entity named above is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by phone and by replying to this message and then delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021, 9:33:02 AM CDT, Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
No oath makes them a regular free citizen. Therefore, no government authority.
The authority government has is pure tyranny. They claim it is contract but
they have no constitutional authority for that and their contracts are not with
knowledge, understanding, and willing. So it is not a contract.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:11 PM Russell Lee <russell.lee.2012@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm just curious but if none of those officials have article 6 oaths, how can
they be held accountable for violating a constitution that no citizen is party
to — as I understand it.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:43 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm filing claim of financial injury caused by certain people in
goverment......Judge, prosecuting attorney, director of elderly care, and
conservator assigned by the judge. All violating the constitution of a free
citizen.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:40 PM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What exactly are you filing w/the AG Charley?
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:40 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me try and explain this a bit. I've heard many issues here and it does not
match up with my business dealings with bonds, insurance, and liability. Does
not match up with what I've learnt of late either in the government process.
The public official has a obligation to the people to perform to a judicial
standard/contract. Wither it is the constitution or legislative law contract
the insurance company is there to settle. Just like many business contracts
that have obligations. To make sure the party full fills there obligation the
other party requires a performance bond. The performance bond guarantees the
obligation is full filled or damage caused by failure of performance the bond
company pays and collects from the individual who took bond out. Now the
obligated is smart he buys an general or balloon insurance policy to pay if
something goes wrong. Last I heard the state supplies a million dollar
insurance for each officer; and if they want more. They buy it. So when you sue
officer it is the insurance policy to pay. Except instead of suing officer you
file with the AG. When you file with the AG he gives the claim to the insurance
company. Just like a car accident. The insurance company settles the matter. If
you and insurance company can not come to agreement. It's court time. Now if
the policy pays but the damage was greater. The bond company pays and goes
after the person who bought the bond. Usual arrangements are made to settle
over time. Bond agent will sell assets if needed. That is why I've said; if
their is damage we should not go to court but to AG with our claim. Then to
court to settle why or why not the claim is valid. Like two insurance
companies battling it out. I think this will be much easier but depends on how
one states their claim. Mine is constitutional; supreme law of the land is my
claim.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:04 PM brian <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You search the Public Records Office, under the heading of “Oaths”!
There will be lots of different topics, in the public records, so search for
“Oaths & Affirmations”,or just “Oaths”, and try “Bonds” too, so you can get
their Bond Insurance info on any public official!
3 Affidavits from 3 different people, on One public official is enough to get
them removed from public duties! Never go alone! Try to go in with at least 2
other witnesses when dealing with ANY public official, in case you all need to
file an Affidavit into their Public Records Office, then get some Certified
Copies of your published Affidavits of wrong-doings by the Public Official, and
send those Certified Copies of ‘Affidavits of Harm/Damage’ to their Bond
Insurance Company with a ‘Notice of Intent to Sue’ (make up your own Notice)
Joe Q. Public Official for $50,000 for trespass/harm/damages/making legal
determinations absent authority, or you would settle for the amount of their
Bond and forego any court action”!!
It would be much cheaper and easier for the Bond Insurance Company to send you
the $10,000 than to have to go to court and possibly have to pay out $50,000,
plus other court costs, attorney fees, Punitive Damages, Compensatory Damages,
etc, eh?!?
I haven’t tried that, but I have read that on the net, years ago!
Peace, all!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2021, at 5:30 PM, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
question is how to get it if the court clerk wont hand it over
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:35 PM Russell Lee <russell.lee.2012@xxxxxxxxx> 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 PMjonbondo@xxxxxxxxx <jonbondo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
if you autowas titled it still is andever registered . even though not
currently.. it belongs to the state and it isnot 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
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/
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
Life in one word--LOVE
