Saturday, December 5, 2015

Driving is a commercial activity part deux

After my first post was sent out on the boards, I had some feedback on the dates of the definitions, and the validity of them today. I guess changing what words mean so to cover their deception never crossed some peoples minds. Never the less, I figured why not show them in the statutes of today, and so we shall.

Florida statutes

322.01

(16) “Drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Notice you are in control of a "motor vehicle" for purposes of "vehicular traffic".

(27) “Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003.


Oh, a self propelled vehicle, well what is a vehicle?


(43) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway or operated upon rails or guideway, except a bicycle, motorized wheelchair, or motorized bicycle.



Key word here is TRANSPORTED





320.01 Definitions, general.
As used in the Florida Statutes, except as otherwise provided, the term:

(1) “Motor vehicle” means:
(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than muscular power, but the term does not include traction engines, road rollers, special mobile equipment as defined in s. 316.003(48), vehicles that run only upon a track, bicycles, swamp buggies, or mopeds.
 
 
Used to TRANSPORT persons or property.
 
In the same chapter we find out that we are motor carriers...
 
(32) “Motor carrier” means any person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any motor vehicle used to transport persons or property over any public highway.
 
Notice in definition 1 that a motor vehicle was used to transport persons or property, and by doing so you then become a motor carrier.
 
Back in chapter 322.01 we find this definition
 
(32) “Passenger vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver, or a school bus designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver.
 
316.003
 

(74) TRANSPORTATION.The conveyance or movement of goods, materials, livestock, or persons from one location to another on any road, street, or highway open to travel by the public.
(75) VEHICLE.Every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
 
 
Traffic - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)
1. Business or trade, commerce. 2. Transportation. 3. The movement of vehicles on street or highway, as, the traffic is very heavy today.Traffic - Bouvier's (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.Traffic - Black's 1st
    Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like.
Traffic - Black's 3rd
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; People v. Horan, 293 Ill. 314, 127 N.E. 673, 674; People v. Dunford, 207 N.Y. 17, 100 N.E. 433, 434; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 289 F. 649, 655.
Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers. Stewart v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 223 Mass. 525, 112 N.E. 218, 219; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa, 377, 145 N.W. 923, 927.
Traffic - Black's 4th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. v. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, canal, etc. United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. Of California, D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.Traffic -Black's 6th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods and money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vegetables, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.Traffic - Florida Words & Phrases
(See Fine v. Moran, 77 So. 533, 538)
The word "traffic" is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary as follows: "To pass goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money; to buy or sell goods; to barter; trade." The subjects of manufacturing; producing; storing; selling, and handling any commodity are matters properly connected with the subject or traffic or trade in that commodity.



Some really good research I ran across while research this post was this quote....



In the early days of motoring, every American learned to drive without any assistance from local, state, or federal government; most learned to drive safely; and most never had any government document to identify themselves or to prove that they had ever passed any government driving test. The states of Massachusetts and Missouri were the first to establish drivers licensing laws in 1903, but Missouri had no driver examination law until 1952. Massachusetts had an examination law for commercial chauffeurs in 1907, and passed its first requirement for an examination of general operators in 1920. The first state to require an examination of driver competency was Rhode Island in 1908 (it also required drivers to have state licenses as early as 1908). South Dakota was both the last state to impose drivers licenses (1954), and the last state to require driver license examinations (1959). [6] Our contemporary belief that drivers licenses were instituted to keep incompetent drivers off the road is a false one. The vast majority of Americans who drove already knew how to drive safely. Why the state governments demanded that they have a state-issued license and pass a government test appears to be more a matter of "control" than of public safety. Why early 20th Century Americans did not resist licensure and did not see where it might lead is another question.
Personal reminiscences of many elderly Americans verify this assertion. For example, one author in VINTAGE JOURNAL wrote that "I remember when the first drivers licenses came out. They cost 50 cents and you didn't have to take a test." [7] Here are a few other comments located on the internet:
In Jefferson County, Kansas "on July 8, 1947, someone from the county seat (Oskaloosa) came to Meriden to issue driver's licenses. Anyone who was 16 years or older and paid the fee was immediately issued a drivers license. No test. The date was easy to remember because I was 16 on that day and did get my drivers license." [8] [Licenses were first required in Kansas in 1931, and driving examinations in 1949.]
During the 1930s in Georgia ... "you didn't have to take a test for driving. You sent for the permit by mail." [9] [There were no drivers licenses in Georgia until 1937, and no driving examination until 1939.]
In Missouri the gas stations sold drivers licenses -- "no test. For 25 cents, they gave you a stub -- you had this until the `real' license came in the mail." [10] [As noted, Missouri was one of the first states to require licenses (1903), but examinations were not required until 1952.]
In Washington state drivers licensing was started in 1921. "Applicant must furnish signatures of two people certifying that the person is a competent driver and has no physical problems that would impair safe driving." [11] [Driving examinations were not initiated until 1937.]
James J. Flink presents a different point of view in his book, AMERICA ADOPTS THE AUTOMOBILE (1970). In his discussion of "Licensing of Operators" (pp. 174-178) he notes that "Automobile interests were well ahead of municipal and state governments by 1902 in recognizing that the compulsory examination of all automobile operators would be desirable. ... Officials of both the American Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of America publicly advocated ... that the states should certify the basic competence of all automobile operators by requiring them to pass an examination before being allowed on the road." [12] It is clear, however, that widespread public sentiment did not exist to support these proposals. It was years before all the state governments passed such laws. In summarizing, Flink concludes that

Despite the motorist's own desire to have their competence examined [an assumption which I would challenge] and certified, state governments still remained reluctant to take adequate action at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century. As of 1909, only twelve states and the District of Columbia required all automobile drivers to obtain licenses. Except for Missouri, these were all eastern states - Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. In seven other states, only professional chauffeurs had to obtain operator's licenses - ... . The application forms for operator's licenses in these nineteen states as a rule asked for little more information than the applicant's name, address, age, and the type of automobile he claimed to be competent to drive. This might have to be notarized, but in the vast majority of these states a license to drive an automobile could still be obtained by mail. In the twelve states that all operators had to be licensed, a combined total of 89,495 licenses were issued between January 1 and October 4, 1909, but only twelve applicants were rejected for incompetency or other reasons during this period - two in Rhode Island and ten in Vermont. [13]


I recommend  reading the whole link found here

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.html#.VmTnH_8QXVK
This gem was also found at the above link....Although Ford's refusal to support the private efforts of the Lincoln Highway Association stymied its attempts to build a transcontinental highway, Fisher, with the assistance of Henry B. Joy, president of Packard Motor Company, pressed on to provide marking for the entire route and to build at least one mile of experimental concrete highway in each of the states the route crossed. The test roadways were actually built in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. The efforts of the Association, though only partially successful, gave some credence to Rose Wilder Lane's statement in her 1943 book, Discovery of Freedom:
... American government should have never interfered with highways. Americans created a free, mutual association, the American Automobile Association, which was dealing with all the new questions arising from the invention of automobiles. Private enterprise originated and built the first trans-Continental highway [this statement is not true if it refers to the Lincoln Highway]; free manufacturers and car-owners would have covered this country with highways, as free Americans covered it with wagon-roads. Americans wanted cars and highways; no police force was needed to take their money from them and spend it for highways. And it is injustice to the Americans who do not own cars, to compel them to pay for highways. [37]

If American roadways had been private property, another question relating to the propriety of driver licensing would have been more easily resolved. Under common law, driving a team of horses, oxen, or mules was a matter of right. Such activities were clearly not a privilege granted to the individual by the state.
In one of the earliest decisions relating to registration and licensing, the Supreme Court of Illinois stated that the City of Chicago might regulate commercial activities, such as those engaged in by draymen, but "no reason exists why [licensing] should apply to the owners of private vehicles used for their own individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion."
Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally evidenced by a license. The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege but a right. ... A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [38]

[38] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Ill 445 (October 24, 1898) at pp., 456-457. The Court affirmed the illegality of the Chicago "Wheel Tax" ordinance.


we begin with the hornbook definition of a license:
A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit. Black's Law Dictionary 829 (5th ed. 1979) (citation omitted). A license fee is the consideration given for the receipt of the permit. It must be related to the government's cost for regulating the occupation or business. Northern Indiana Coin Operators Ass'n v. South Bend (1985), Ind. App., 478 N.E.2d 704, 706 (citing Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8 (1982)).http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1990/41s04-9005-cv-351-4.html

I dedicate this to the people that swear they know everything, but are still clueless.



Saturday, November 28, 2015

Driving is a commercial activity.

Even long before Ford invented the model t, driving was a licensed privilege. We find this while searching for licensed carriage drivers in 1850.


As the commercial center of the antebellum South, New Orleans depended on an adequate system of transportation to get its varied goods to market. The municipal government regulated this activity by licensing operators of carts, carriages, and other conveyances. This document is a security bond designed to insure that the licensee, a free black man by the name of Jacques Voltaire, abided by the rules governing such vehicles.

From here
http://www.neworleanspubliclibrary.org/~nopl/exhibits/black96.htm

Now in England they licensed carriage drivers as well, or hackney drivers as they called them.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ao4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA279&lpg=RA2-PA279&dq=carriage+drivers+licensed+in+the+1850's&source=bl&ots=Yy8XHpMl-p&sig=JRZWV78c4aG-qaz1yN5HwhH_whg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO3Mvm07HJAhXMNiYKHc37CsEQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=carriage%20drivers%20licensed%20in%20the%201850's&f=false


Now to define the word "driver"


DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
 
DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914)p. 940.
 
DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951


What is DRIVER?

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,


Law Dictionary: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black's Law Dictionary)


driver




[drahy-ver]
noun
1.
a person or thing that drives.
2.
a person who drives a vehicle; coachman, chauffeur, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/driver


So we can see that "driving" has been a licensed occupation long before autos came around. Now lets take a look at some other commonly used words we think we understand.

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE  Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term -


''Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;



Motor vehicle - Laws of Florida c. 14764 (1931)
The term "motor vehicle" shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public highways (but not over fixed rails) for the transportation of persons or property for compensation either as common carriers, private contract carriers or for hire carriers.



Traffic - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)
1. Business or trade, commerce. 2. Transportation. 3. The movement of vehicles on street or highway, as, the traffic is very heavy today.



Traffic - Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.



Traffic - Black's Law Dictionary 3rd
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; People v. Horan, 293 Ill. 314, 127 N.E. 673, 674; People v. Dunford, 207 N.Y. 17, 100 N.E. 433, 434; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 289 F. 649, 655.
Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers. Stewart v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 223 Mass. 525, 112 N.E. 218, 219; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa, 377, 145 N.W. 923, 927.



Traffic - Black's Law Dictionary 4th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. v. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, canal, etc. United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. Of California, D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.



Traffic -Black's Law Dictionary 6th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods and money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vegetables, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.



Transportation - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)
1. The act or business of moving passengers and goods. 2. The means of conveyance used. 3. Banishment, esp. of convicts to a penal colony.



Transportation - Black's Law Dictionary 3rd
The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 Sup.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 5 Sup.Ct. 826, 29 L.Ed. 158.
Under Interstate Commerce Act, (49 USCA sec. 1 et seq.
), "transportation" includes the entire body of services rendered by a carrier in connection with the receipt, handling, and delivery of property transported, and includes the furnishing of cars. Pletcher v. Chicago, R. L. & P. Ry. Co., 103 Kan. 834, 177 P. 1, 2.
In a general sense transportation means merely conveyance from one place to another. People v. Martin, 235 Mich. 206, 209 N.W. 87.



Transportation - Black's Law Dictionary 4th
The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com'n v. Brimson, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 826, 114 U.S. 196, 29 L.Ed. 158.



Transportation - Black's 6th
The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier.



Transportation - 49 U.S.C. ¤ 5102(12)
"transports" or "transportation" means the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.



Transportation - Words and Phrases
See State v. Western Trans Co. (1950, Iowa) 43 N.W.2d 739 [The judge, after giving his conclusion, goes on to give examples of "transportation" - all involving the movement of persons or goods for hire.]



Terms found in the CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE  and associated with the DMV and applied to those persons who do what the DMV regulates:
 
 
COMMERCIAL.  Relating to or connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general.  “Zante Currents”, C.C.Cal.,73 F. 189.  Occupied with commerce.  Bowles v. Co-Operative G. L. F. Farm Products, D.C.N.Y., 53 F. Supp. 413, 415.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 337
 
INTERSTATE COMMERCETraffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from between points in one state and points in another state; commerce between the states, or between places in different states.
It comprehends all the component parts of commercial intercourse between different states.
[Cites omitted]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 955
 
TRAFFIC. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like.  The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money.  Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U.S., C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. V. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633.  The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as a long a street, canal etc.  United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. of California , D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 4th Ed., p. 1667
 
TRANSPORTATION.  The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com’n v. Brimson, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 826, 114 U.S. 196, 29 L.Ed. 158
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1670
 
 
So basically if you are a "driver", "operator" driving a "motor vehicle" in "traffic" then you are admitting that you are engaging in commerce.
 
 
...state activities integrally related to commerce, and acted within its sphere of power to afford "security * * * to the rights of the people" by preventing the States from releasing personal information that they require individuals to submit as a condition of engaging in activity-owning and operating a motor vehicle-that is integrally related to commerce generally...
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL.,
In the Supreme Court of the United States, (Jan. 12, 2000)
No. 98-1464
[Emphasis added]
 
 
 
But fear not friends, freedom IS possible.
 
 
 

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Public school

A post about the mass brainwashing factories known as the public school system.

Lets start with Funding, we of course know that taxes fund school, but does it fund all of it? Ever hear of the GEB? General education board was set up in 1903 b none other then that lovable guy, John D Wreck a feller. By 1907 old John D had donated 43 million dollars to educate Americas less fortunate. What a swell guy, right?

Lets take a look..

http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/education/general_education_board

[quote]To persuade local populations that public schools were necessary, the GEB relied on a number of methods, including what came to be known as “circuit riders.” Circuit riders were professors hired as Chairs of Education by state universities but paid for by the GEB. They traveled across the region extolling the benefits of public education and lobbying local governments to raise taxes to pay for it. [/quote]


Some more about the foundations of our public school funding...


http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/01/28/untold-history-modern-u-s-education-founding-fathers/

[quote]
The Guggenheim Foundation agreed to award fellowships to historians recommended by the Carnegie Endowment. Gradually, through the 1920′s, they assembled a group of twenty promising young academics, and took them to London. There they briefed them on what was expected of them when they became professors of American history. That twenty were the nucleus of what was eventually to become the American Historical Association. The Guggenheim Foundation also endowed the American Historical Association with $400,000 at that time.

By 1950 the Rockefeller Foundation endowed Columbia Teachers College in New York City, formerly named the Russell’s Teacher College, produced one-third of all presidents of teacher-training institutions, one-fifth of all American public school teachers, and one-quarter of all superintendents.

J.D Rockefeller and family additionally funded and founded the University of Chicago, Rockefeller University (which focused on offering only postgraduate and postdoctoral education), the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health as well as the Rockefeller University Press.

They also controlled, and continue to maintain ownership control in, school textbook companies and scholastic literature copy rights used in the public school systems thus being able to direct the historical narrative used in schools through Guggenheims American Historical Society.

Additionally, through use of political favors and influence as well as the structuring of public educational taxes through property ownership, these few NGO Foundations were able to mold educational policy and control the flow of funds to school districts and community colleges at the Federal levels.
[/quote]

That is a lot of influence on our school system by just a few men, wonder why the interest in the schooling of the poor? Were they trying to help, or were they trying to create min wage workers for their empires?

Here is more from the same link above....

[quote]

“The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion.
The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in education and the social sciences, with a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. This Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of education.”  -John Taylor Gatto, author of “The Underground History of Education” and Thrice NY Teacher of the Year
In 1954, a special Congressional Committee investigated the interlocking web of tax-exempt foundations to see what impact their grants were having on the American people. The Reece Committee, as it became known, stumbled onto the fact that some of these foundations had embarked upon a gigantic project to rewrite American history and incorporate it into new school text books.
Norman Dodd, the Reece committee’s research director, found, in the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the following remarkable statement of purpose:
“The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of the education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem so the portion of education which could be considered domestically oriented would be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the portion which was oriented to international matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”
Dodd proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.
Dodd further stated:
“The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science.”
Mr. Dodd’s research staff had discovered that in 1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a revolution.”
The Reece Commission also indicated conclusively that:
  • The responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
  • That a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside the local community.
  • That this “revolution” had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate.
Mr. Dodd stated that this revolution “could not have occurred peacefully or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it.”
According to Mr. Dodd, grants given to these Foundations had been used for:
 –  Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
 –  Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which it (formerly) had been dedicated.
 – Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.
  – Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.
  – Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.”
Mr. Dodd cited a book called “The Turning of the Tides”, which documented the literature from various tax-exempt foundations and organizations like UNESCO, showing that they wished to install a centralized World Government.
The Reece Commission quickly ran into a buzzsaw of opposition from influential centers of American corporate life. Major national newspapers hurled scathing criticisms, which, together with pressure from other potent political adversaries, forced the committee to disband prematurely without action.
****
Additionally, in 1951, Hon. John T. Wood (Idaho), House of Representatives, added these remarks in the Congressional record on the Report to the American People on UNESCO (United Nations for Education, Science and Culture Organization). From the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress, First Session on Thursday, October 18, 1951:
“UNESCO’s scheme to pervert public education appears in a series of nine volumes, titled ‘Toward Understanding’ which presume to instruct kindergarten and elementary grade teachers in the fine art of preparing our youngsters for the day when their first loyalty will be to a world government, of which the United States will form but an administrative part…
The program is quite specific. The teacher is to begin by eliminating any and all words, phrases, descriptions, pictures, maps, classroom material or teaching methods of a sort causing his pupils to feel or express a particular love for, or loyalty to, the United States of America. Children exhibiting such prejudice as a result of prior home influence – UNESCO calls it outgrowth of the narrow family spirit – are to be dealt an abundant measure of counter propaganda at the earliest possible age. Booklet V, on page 9, advises the teacher that:
‘The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child’s education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership, at about the age of seven, in a group of his own age and habits – the first of many such social identifications that he must achieve on his way to membership in the world society.’”  
*****
“Schools were designed by Horace Mann and others to be instruments of the scientific management of a mass population.”   John Taylor Gatto author of “Weapons of Mass Education
[/quote]


Here is the unesco manual        unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000569/056926eo.pdf


Crazy stuff folks.


This has only been a taste, take it upon your self to research this your self, it's your kids future, put a little time in it, before you send your kid to a little slave making factory that you went thru.

There is massive amounts of information detailing what is going on, all you have to do is drop your false beliefs and research the topics anew.

Look at this quote here...

[quote]

The BEHAVIORAL TEACHER EDUCATIONAL PROJECT outlines specific teaching reforms to be forced on the country, unwillingly of course, after 1967. It also sets out, in clear language, the outlook and intent of its invisible creators. Nothing less than quoting again "the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions", an America in which (quoting again) "each individual receives at birth, a multipurpose identification number which enables employers and other controllers to keep track of their [underlings]", (underlings is my interpretation, everything else came out of the document), "and to expose them to the directors subliminal influence of the state education department and the federal department acting through those whenever necessary".

[/quote]


Here is a link to some more GEB information

https://archive.org/stream/generaleducation029311mbp/generaleducation029311mbp_djvu.txt

Found the link to the GEB letter number 1

https://books.google.com/books?id=QzhDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false





Some more school quotes to help you see more clearly.....


“Plans are underway to replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education and mass media. “
-Edward A. Ross, Social Control, 1901.
 
“Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed customs. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.”
-William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889-1906.
 
“The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent.”
-John Dewey
 
“Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.”
-William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889-1906.
 
“Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society. Social systems which endure are built on the average person who can be trained to occupy any position adequately if not brilliantly.”
-Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind, 1948.
 
“In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers were doing in an imperfect way.”
-The Rockefeller General Education Board, Occasional Letter No.1, 1906.
 
“Nothing is more central to the maintenance of social order than the regulatory mechanisms employed to control and socialize our children.”
-Ronald Boostom, Coordinator for Juvenile “Justice” in California, 1980.
 
“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”
-Justice H. Walter Croskey, 2008.
 
“Today’s corporate sponsors want to see their money used in ways to line up with business objectives…. This is a young generation of corporate sponsors and they have discovered the advantages of building long-term relationships with educational institutions.”
-Suzanne Cornforth of Paschall & Associates, public relations consultants. As quoted in The New York Times, July 15, 1998.
 
“That erroneous assumption is to the effort that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence….Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
-H.L Mencken, The American Mercury, April 1924.
 
“The new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme.”-Dr. Arthur W. Calhoun, A Social History of The American Family: From Colonial Times to the Present, 1919.




 

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Elements of civil government by Peterman (1891)

chapter 16 page 167.

POLTICAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES.

By the social compact, men also agree to abandon a part of their natural rights in order to participate in the government. They agree in part to be governed by others, in order that in part they may govern others.

The rights of participating in the government, such as voting and holding office, are called political rights, because they affect the public policy of society.

Political rights do not belong to men by nature, but are conferred by government. Within reasonable bounds, they may be enlarged or restricted without injustice.

Since they are conferred by the government, the power to vote and to hold office is a privilege to be enjoyed rather then a right to be asserted.


Chapter 16 page 164

Without government natural rights are unlimited; each person may lay claim to all land and to all it produces, provided he is strong enough to maintain his claim by force.

When men join the social compact, they agree to abandon some of their natural rights, in order to be protected by the government in those they retain.

Page 166

The comfort and convenience of the public are even more important then the comfort and convenience of any person. Therefore, individual rights must yield to public rights when the two conflict.

This right of society, existing above the right of any of it members, is called the right of eminent domain. By it individual rights must yield to the rights of society, of the government, or of a corporation


read the rest here....
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/civilgov.htm

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

One of the most important videos you will ever watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7370&v=dIEemKcy-4E

Mark Passio seminar on natural law. Its a looong video, but more then worth your time. Understand the info in this video or you will never understand this blog friends. This stuff is not rocket science either, TAKE THE TIME.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Driving do's and don't when pulled over.

A lot of people ask me about traffic laws and tickets, so I thought I'd put together some stuff for educational purposes only. This is not legal advice, rather it is legal information.

First thing I would do is study up on my motor vehicle laws so that way I know what the law is for sure. If you are in Florida, it's title 23 chapter 316. Understanding the letter of the law is important and can get you out of many a ticket.

Now I will always suggest for you to comply before getting tazed or shot, the side of the road is not where you hold court at. I have found that most officers spend very little time learning the letter of the law, they just expect you to obey when they say something is the law.


When pulled over, hands where they can be seen, window down a minimum amount needed, doors locked. Only answer questions that pertain to the reason you were stopped. A reasonable amount of time for a stop is 15-20 mins, if the officer appears aggressive or agitated I would request a supervisor or call 9-11 yourself and request a supervisor.

Remember, comply, don't die. We got traffic tickets licked anyway, no need to even sweat it. As most traffic laws are victim less, compelled to perform laws prosecuted by the legal fiction, the state.

DO NOT go the sovereign citizen route of tossing your license, tags, etc. That is a process for the master student of the law, there is much more that you do not understand about it yet.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Banks do not lend money.

Some people realize our banks create money out of thin air. However most do not realize this simple fact.

What I am about to tell you is a fantastic scam, used to enslave us financially.

Its ok if you do not believe it, I realize most of you don't think to much as it is.

Our story begins with fractional reserve banking (hereafter FRB), now the way it works is simple.

There are only two ways to create money in our system. 1. The government borrows money thru t-bonds. 2. The public borrows money thru FRB.

We will concentrate on number 2 today.

Banks have a 9-1 or 10% reserve ratio today. Meaning for every dollar they have in reserve they can create and loan out 9 dollars.

So where do reserves come from?

Reserves come from customers money deposited but also from promissory notes.

Let's walk you thru the loan process real quick.

A loan in reality is just an exchange, your note( money of account) for the banks checkbook money (also money of account).

You see a note is a negotiable instrument and has certain laws governing them.

Now modern money mechanics put out by the Chicago Fed tells us that they don't loan money. What they do is accept notes IN EXCHANGE for CREDITS to the borrowers transaction account.

Now when a bank deposits a note, 12 usc 1813 L1, tells us it acts like money.

Which makes sense because to be a holder in due course you have to accept the instrument for value. A lost note means the bank has to indemnify you the amount of the note if they want to foreclose.

So according to GAAP'S matching principal. The note should be entered into the banks asset side, and the same amount should be credited (not loaned) into your account(now reread modern money's explanation of a loan).

But instead of crediting your account, they say they loan you something, and the note(which is your asset) You gave to them for nothing.

Hope this helps clear some stuff you might of wondered about.






Monday, August 3, 2015

Federal citizenship also known as US citizen


Let's look at what the courts have said about federal citizenship:

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.

"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but completely subject..."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

While Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning all federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual".
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)




For those of you who can read, it seems pretty clear.

civil rights

Now, we need to define a civil right. As always, we start by looking at the definition of civil:

Definition of CIVIL

1a : of or relating to citizens

b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

2a : civilized <civil society>

3a : of, relating to, or based on civil law

b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings

c : established by law

As you can see, civil pertains to matters of society: of the citizens of a given government. In other words, Parties to the Social Contract which formed and govern a given community. Therefore, a civil right is a right that is established by law as a function of the terms of a given Social Contract and not by Nature. However, a civil right must be enacted in accordance with the constraints of Natural Law, as Natural Law governs the Social Contract from which all civil law draws its authority. If a civil law attempts to create a right that would be a breach of Natural Rights, then it is not a law or a right because it violates Natural Law. In essence, Natural Law can nullify man-made laws, and this includes civil rights. So, as a general rule of thumb, we can define a civil right as a right constructed by a law enacted according to the terms of the Social Contract which formed and governs a community and which is in accord with the constraints of Natural law. Some examples of a civil right would be the right to a speedy trial; to face your accuser; to a jury trial; to a lawyer; to call witnesses and present a defense; and, if you are convicted, to an appeal.

NOTE: Because a civil law is created by an act of legislation under the terms of the Social Contract which authorizes and supports whatever government passes the law creating it, a civil law is always subject to being changed or eliminated whereas a Natural Right can never be abridged or eliminated.



Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.

The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in dred scott v. sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691, that the Constitution did not apply to African Americans because they were not citizens when the Constitution was written. After the Civil War, therefore, new laws were necessary for the purpose of extending civil liberties to the former slaves.




If you do not understand the difference between civil rights and natural unalienable rights, then freedom is going to keep eluding you friends.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Are all men created equal?

(Note) In law whenever the word man/men is used, it includes both men and women/woman.

With that said, let us begin.

Today is a great day in history says my wall on FB, gay people won the "right" to get licensed to marry. Isn't that grand?

I can not but help to remember those words from long ago....

All men are created equal.

But I'm so confused because we know blacks have to fight to end slavery and get their rights, and so did women.

Now gay people have to fight for their rights.

How does this all jive with the American dream and a slave owner saying all men are created equal.

Well to begin with all men are created equal, the same rights and everything. However on reaching the age of majority, you entered into contracts with the government that replaced your natural rights with civil rights.

When you enter into these contracts, you acquire statuses. Under the marriage contract you get the husband/wife statuses. Each status you have has different rights and obligations.

The reason he said all men are created equal is because they are. Men without status are free.

Check the law for your self. See if any man/men are regulated by law.

What you find is every other term possible besides man is used.

Person,citizen,resident,employee,husband,wife,taxpayer, etc.

It is said that law applies to all men, but yet men are never listed. Most law is directed against person, of which you agree that you are the person.

But are you that person or are you a man/woman?

Do you even know where the word person comes from and what it means?

You are agreeing to all kinds of stuff you have no clue about.

Its time to get on you big boy and big girl pants. If you don't take the time to understand who you are in law, EXPECT others to take advantage of you.

Civil marriage is different then holy matrimony in some big ways. First thing is every man that is free needs permission from no one.

Second is that holy matrimony is a relationship between you, spouse and God.

A civil marriage is a contract sui generis between you,spouse and the state. However in this arrangement the state is the dominate party. This is also one of the strongest contracts the state has over its citizens.

Anything done with the state marriage license can also be done without it.

Stop being lazy, there are people out there willing to help. Drop this belief that our government wants to help us, it is blinding you to the truth.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Application for SSN equals loss of rights...

From Social Security's own "Program Operations Manual System" -- pay close attention to section "E." :

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0110205180
RM 10205.180 Applicant’s Signature on a Form SS-5 when applicant is not in the office
Ensure that Form SS-5 is signed by a proper applicant. See “Policy for determining the proper applicant” in RM 10205.025B.

A. Number holder applies on his or her own behalf
If the NH applies on his or her own behalf, the signature in item 17 must agree with the Name to be Shown on Card in item 1. For acceptable discrepancies, see RM 10205.180E.

B. Proper applicant applies on behalf of NH
When the applicant is not the NH, the proper applicant must sign his or her own name and indicate his or her relationship to the NH, e.g., John Smith, father. Using “for” in the signature block, e.g., John Smith for Mary Smith, is not correct.

C. Signature by mark
If Form SS-5 is signed by mark, it must be witnessed beneath or beside the mark by at least one person.

D. Signatures of foreign-born applicants
Accept signatures from foreign-born applicants that are in characters other than our standard alphabet without question.


E. Remarks added to signature block
Additional information in the signature block may invalidate the application. Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements that imply the applicant’s refusal to be subject to the penalty clause on the application (e.g., “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or “with reservation”).

If such an annotation is made, do not process the SS-5. Return Form SS-5 to the applicant with Form SSA-L676. In the blank fill-in box indicate that “The application cannot be processed because you altered your signature on the application.”

So, if a reservation of rights is made by the SS-5 application, the Social Security Administration will not process the application or issue a number. In other words, applying for, and receiving, a SSN presumes the applicant has voluntarily waived his rights, BY SIGNATURE. That's a pretty strong presumption in favor of the SSA... and IRS. Oh, and guess what? The SS-5 is an Internal Revenue Service form. Here's an example of an SS-5 from the 1950's:
http://www.harveysbombing.com/Links_files/SS-5/HarveyAGross-530-24-1580.jpg

And gee, whaddya know? Since then they have removed any mention of "Internal Revenue Service" from the SS-5 form: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf.

They wouldn't do that to conceal the relationship between voluntarily getting a SSN and thus signing away your rights (in exchange for eligibility for benefits), thus enjoying a lifelong, cozy relationship with IRS? No way!

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Let's talk property!

Welcome back folks, tonight we talk about property.

Every adult has property of some kind, house, car, phone, etc. Most of us assume our property is private, but is it? How can we tell?

The first thing we need to do is find out the LEGAL definition of property.

What is PROPERTY?

The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.

Did you get that last line there?

To the EXCLUSION of others.

A hard and fast rule when trying to decide if the property you own is public or private is that private property can not be taxed, fined or have a fee attached to use it. Nor can anyone else tell you what you can or can not do with it.

Let's just take motor vehicles since I have looked into that extensively. Most people have a certificate of title, which is NOT a title. It is just a record that a title exists. So if a title exists and you the owner of the vehicle does not have it, then why don't you have it?

You don't have it because your car is not private property, which is why you pay an annual fee to use it, and why the state makes rules for your use and upkeep of it.

You can find my video on YouTube dealing with Florida vehicle title law. Under patriotdiscussions.

Some more info on property friends.



[QUOTE]“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” -Senate Resolution No. 62 (April 24, 1933)[/QUOTE]

I took the liberty of looking up the senate document, least non experts be sure I be speaking the sovereign lingo.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-aPLYgh0mMfPhrqCq/Senate%20Doc%2043%20Money%20Banking%20History%20Senate%2043_djvu.txt
near the bottom of the page.

Now you know why the state can take your property for back taxes, because the state owns everything, including you and your kids.

[QUOTE]“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “
Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).
(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1325717.html)
[/QUOTE]