Fraud out in the Open

Here's a passage from our codes here in PA. Title 75Check this out.

§ 1571.  Violations concerning licenses.

(a.1)  Employees and agents.--It is unlawful for any department employee or any agent of the department to issue a fictitious or fraudulently altered driver's license when the employee or agent has knowledge that the application for the driver's license or the driver's license contains fictitious or fraudulent information.

So there it is, right there in full print for all to see; exactly what you were talking about. It is against the law for an agent or employee of the DMV to issue a Strawman "driver's license" if "the agent has knowledge (after you inform them in your rescission letter of course) the application...contains FICTITIOUS...INFORMATION!"

There it is. You tell them by registered mail, return receipt requested that the name on the application, license or both is a  "FICTITIOUS" Strawman Name and they do nothing about it? Now you've got them right where you want them. In violation of THEIR OWN RULES!

THAT'S how you get 'em. Not for a law suit necessarily, but to win in court and show a pattern of FRAUD by The Department of "Motor Vehicles" and their agents/employees.

This alone should be enough to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the intent of the DMV is to DEFRAUD and entrap normal everyday people into unknowingly giving up their rights.

This can no longer remain unchallenged. It's time to remove THEIR plates and THEIR registration and THEIR "Driver's License" and THEIR "Certificate of Title" from your possession and RETURN THEM TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNER!

Then hop in your car with your Go Pro camera instantly uploading to the cloud and see what happens next. 

If you have ANY doubts that this is the right thing to do, Listen to ALL of these videos and get back to me when you've learned what I've learned.

Go listen to Rich Iverson HERE!

Don't come back 'till your done. Then I'd like to hear your Comments and Opinions.

Views: 643

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Most excellent explanation I've heard so far Mike. You are of course Exactly correct on every statement. My Sheriff will have this knowledge shared with him very soon. Bravo Mike. Kudos to your most excellent edification.

  1 st comment ) Who can afford to have their car impounded for weeks if not months at a time?

A simple notice of For Sale as is with a "Read Carefully" qualifier addressed to anyone wishing to "take possession" of your "Private Property" should keep that demon away Joe. Listen to the lesson videos to learn how. Click this Link 

Patricia, I have learned the same mailing instructions that Morton is sharing.

In addition, I've read that we could use the postal zip codes ONLY if we place [brackets] before and after the numbers. In law, this is EXTRA information that legally removes the facts from the page. We all have seen editors do the same when they are correcting typos of another individual's writings or quotes. They bracket the editor's additions or comments to more clearly explain something. So, the sorting of mail goes at it's same pace without delay.

Another mail rumor is that the 9 digit zip code is all that's necessary to ensure domestic mail reaches it's destination. Not entirely sure about it, but I'd still place it within brackets.

→I found this article and this thread is the most appropriate place I could find to share the information. Look at what is happening to our rights in this motor vehicle example. This has a far reaching precedent in all our interactions with anyone with perceived authority to do what they please. There are no consequences for their ignorance, or outright lawless behavior.

The Supreme Court just placed a legal precedent on-the-books for all future unconstitutional stops, detaining and/or arrests. The police or any perceived authority personel has free reign to disregard the Bill of Rights.

Notice in the first paragraph, last sentence, the deceitful use of the phrase "civil liberties" as opposed to "Constitutional Rights". Are they reinforcing their deceptive "U.S. citizen" (lowercase c) corporate courts, codes, and regulations to further corrupt our status as  sovereign "American Citizen" (capital C) and lawful CommonLaw courts and laws? The deceitful quote below came from a sitting Supreme Court justice. Mistake or intentional? They should know better!

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Citizens Have No Protection Against 4th Amendment Violations by Police Ignorant of the Law



scotus

In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment‘s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”

“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”

In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which, at first, failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer’s pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that, since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer’s mistake was a “reasonable” one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed. In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn against allowing government agents to “benefit” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise, lest it become an incentive for abuse.

Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You are, of course, absolutely correct Linda,

The only remaining question is, "How long have we got before We Must Act?

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service