De-registering car nonsense...

Jobaboba's Jokes Factory. (Only for those who are feeling silly)

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby Dreadlock » Fri May 19, 2017 12:42 pm

Oh dear. More of the trust nonsense. Since when is a trust a person? Since when can a trust be held liable for anything?
The answer to both questions is "never"... but if you can provide the reader with evidence to the contrary then please, I for one would love to see it...
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby iamani » Fri May 19, 2017 8:55 pm

Hi dreadlock

You seem a tad confused. Perhaps you're responding to a different post? The questions you posed don't seem to bear any relevance to my post as i did not posit a person as a trust nor did i mention holding a trust liable for anything - but if you can provide the reader with evidence to the contrary then please....

i suppose it's a good sign that you couldn't find anything (that was actually on my post) real to criticise.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby Dreadlock » Fri May 19, 2017 10:49 pm

See this thread, my post dated Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:52 am, in which I stated that the person is the property of the Crown Corporation. Followed by your response in the same day in which you stated:
Thanks for your reply, i agree with everything in it.


Followed by your post of Wed May 17, 2017 2:43 pm in which you state
...he transfers ownership of car to his Crown-created (and therefore Crown-owned) Estate made up in a name (JOHN JAMES DOE)...

JOHN JAMES DOE being the person, it follows that you are saying the trust is a person. If I am mistaken then by all means clarify your position.

While it is true that you did not mention holding the trust liable for anything, the question is relevant because it is the person who is held liable under traffic statutes.

Also, the V5 form is not a contract. It is merely an instrument for supplying information - a record. No where on the form will you find the words, trustee, grantor, beneficiary or contract. Utter nonsense. I have had my car de-registered by the way and not once did any of this trust crap come up - because there isn't one.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby iamani » Sat May 20, 2017 2:42 am

Hi dreadlock

The quotes used are correct and i stand by them. However you seem to have used them to your disadvantage as their use seems to demonstrate both a lack of understanding and some erroneous assumption on your part.

i accept your gracious invitation to clarify my position on your mistakes as follows:

It is my position that you mistakenly assumed JOHN JAMES DOE to be the 'person'. It is clearly shown that J.J.DOE is described as the 'Estate', so it does not in fact follow that i was saying the 'trust' is a ' person'. i actually identified the 'person' as 'Mr Doe', who is the fictional 'Agent' of the fictional 'Estate' both of which are created and owned by the fictional 'Crown Corporation'.

It is also my position that not only did i not mention liability of the trust i did not mention it AT ALL! You brought it up on assumption so the question remains irrelevant to any text in my post.

Regarding the V5 not being a contract - are you serious? Really? You do know that you don't have to know you're in/forming a trust to be in one, right? So it would follow that the words trustee, grantor, beneficiary or contract don't have to appear on said contract, they just have to be represented in the transaction - and i clearly identified the players. If it looks like a trust, walks like a trust and quacks like a trust then it likely is a trust.

If they don't mention it when you register a car then why on earth would they mention it when you de-register a car? T.H.E.Y. are not exactly known for full and frank disclosure you know...

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby Dreadlock » Sat May 20, 2017 8:05 am

JOHN JAMES DOE would be the name of a person from my perspective. While it is true that I did not use an all caps name in my post, the one with which you agreed, I have in many other posts explicitly stated that the person is represented by all caps.

JOHN JAMES DOE, per your posts, is therefore a person from my perspective. Clearly you disagree with me, therefore your statement that you agree with everything in my post, dated
Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:52 am, is not true.

Thank you for your clarification.

As for the question of liability, it was brought up, not in assumption, but to expose one of the flaws of the trust theory to which you cling. I am well aware that you did not mention liability - I never claimed that you did.

If the NAME represents a trust, as you believe, then kindly explain how a trust can commit an offence (or act in any way whatsoever) and appear in a court wherein it is suspected to be liable for something.
Also, how and why does the trust end up in mari-time jurisdiction when it is an instrument of equity? Why would the government (TPTB, vatican, whoever) create such a trust in the first place?
I've asked questions like this, of you, before. I don't honestly expect a decent answer.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby iamani » Sat May 20, 2017 3:17 pm

Hi dreadlock

Yes i agreed with the post you refer to - and still do. That doesn't mean i agree with all of your posts or suppositions. In the post you refer to the ALL CAPS name is not referred to as the person. In this instance it matters not that you have asserted such elsewhere.

As i said, i stand by my assertion that i agreed with your post. Again that doesn't mean i agree with perspectives you hold elsewhere. Contrary to your assertion my assertion that i agreed with your post stands as truth.

You are more than welcome.

i didn't claim that you claimed that i mentioned liability - i pointed out that liability wasn't mentioned in my post. It was an assumption that seems to have been brought up as an attempt to deflect attention from your mistake. Also, it didn't expose any flaw.

OK yes i believe the NAME represents a trust, but your next request/question seems to imply that i believe a trust can act or appear of its own volition, and it can be suspected to be liable for something. Another erroneous assumption on your part (but who's counting, eh?). Indeed that is not my belief, nor have i espoused such. As i pointed out, it's all fiction - given volition by ignorant humans who don't appreciate the power of a signature.

How and why does the Trust end up in maritime jurisdiction?
Easy! - it's because john-james signs a (commercial) maritime contract in the manner and name of a 'person' (Mr Doe) in ignorance.

How and why would T.H.E.Y. create such a trust?
T.H.E.Y. didn't. T.H.E.Y. created the concept and documentary framework (V5) to enable the creation of a trust (a trap, if you will). It is john-james who creates the trust by completing the V5 as per the instructions of the DVLA in black ink, block caps and an unqualified spurious signature. If he was looking for equity then he should have created his own (private) trust.

Trusts appear in different forms and ALL jurisdictions of law - spiritual, physical and mental/fictional. Have you ever studied trusts to the point of understanding? You really should take the time, it's very important and almost always relevant.

Yes you have in the past asked me questions in a similar manner. Unfortunately you seem to have the habit of veering from rational male logic into the realms of hormonal-female logic (please forgive me if i err in my assumption that you are male) usually when your mistakes are pointed out. You also seem to have a penchant for presenting (sometimes flawed) suppositions as suppositories. You may have noticed that it is always at this point that i withdraw from the debate, as hormonal-female logic aches my head in trying to re-direct attention back to the matter at hand. It's hard work (and possibly explains my MGTOW monkhood) for no reward.

So let's summarise from your original critique:

"Oh dear. More of the trust nonsense..."
This denotes an attitude of unassailable superiority, even arrogance. Suppository, anyone...?

"Since when is a trust a person?"
An irrelevant question as i did not suggest such in the post you are criticising.

"Since when can a trust be held liable for anything?"
Again, irrelevant for same reason.

"The answer to both questions is never...."
Yup. But as i never posed those questions it's irrelevant.

"...but if you can provide evidence to the contrary..."
Why would i? It was your assertion, not mine.

You might not agree but in my opinion not only have i delivered a decent answer but I have delivered you a ro'lockingly good one!

Before i go, a question for you dreadlock. You have seen my posts denoting an interest in the subject of de-regging cars, you have engaged in debate with me on the subject, yet you chose to withhold your own knowledge on the subject. Was this a) out of spite? b) out of fear/self-interest? or c) duper's delight?

Hmmmm.... ?

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby Dreadlock » Sun May 21, 2017 8:38 am

Yes i agreed with the post you refer to - and still do.

YOu seem to be stating that you accept that the word "person" as used by me, in my post with which you agreed,
represents the CAPS name (consistent with earlier posts of mine). But when you use CAPS it represents a trust. You are therefore stating that you agree with both uses, correct?

Again that doesn't mean i agree with perspectives you hold elsewhere

I never said it did or should.

i didn't claim that you claimed that i mentioned liability - i pointed out that liability wasn't mentioned in my post.
It was an assumption that seems to have been brought up as an attempt to deflect attention from your mistake. Also, it didn't expose any flaw.

As i have already stated, it was not an assumption. Nor was it brought up to defelect from any mistake. The timeline clearly shows that I
raised the question of liability before any mention of possible mistakes was made. I mention liability soley to expose the flaw.

OK yes i believe the NAME represents a trust, but your next request/question seems to imply that i believe a trust can act or appear of its own volition, and it can be suspected to be liable for something.
Another erroneous assumption on your part (but who's counting, eh?).

Oh very clever. Draw an implication, attach it to me, discredit it straw-man style and hope no one notices you didn't answer the question.
I repeat:
How can a trust can commit an offence (or act in any way whatsoever) and appear in a court wherein it is suspected to be liable for something?

How and why does the Trust end up in maritime jurisdiction?
Easy! - it's because john-james signs a (commercial) maritime contract in the manner and name of a 'person' (Mr Doe) in ignorance.

Where within the V5 are the elements of a contract? Why is it important for john-james to sign as a person? What is the relationship between the person
Mr john-james and the trust? Where is this relationship evidenced?

How and why would T.H.E.Y. create such a trust?
T.H.E.Y. didn't. T.H.E.Y. created the concept and documentary framework (V5) to enable the creation of a trust (a trap, if you will).
It is john-james who creates the trust by completing the V5 as per the instructions of the DVLA in black ink, block caps and an unqualified spurious signature.
If he was looking for equity then he should have created his own (private) trust.

So you are claiming that everytime a V5 form is correctly filled in and signed, a new trust is created? Correct?

I am going to skip the rhetorical part of your post - it's a waste of time.

"Oh dear. More of the trust nonsense..."
This denotes an attitude of unassailable superiority, even arrogance. Suppository, anyone...?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm of the old shool where a spade is a spade. I couldn't care less about hurting or offending someone's overly-sensitive feelings.

"Since when is a trust a person?"
An irrelevant question as i did not suggest such in the post you are criticising.

Perfectly relevant. The ALL CAPS name is used to represent a person in court (but you already know this don't you?). Extrapolating from someone's position, in this case
yours that the CAPS NAME represents a trust, is a perfectly valid way of verifying or falsifying that position. Your lack of suggestion is the irrelevant factor here.

"Since when can a trust be held liable for anything?"
Again, irrelevant for same reason.

See above.

"The answer to both questions is never...."
Yup. But as i never posed those questions it's irrelevant.

See above.

"...but if you can provide evidence to the contrary..."
Why would i? It was your assertion, not mine.

Not an assertion, a challenge.

You might not agree but in my opinion not only have i delivered a decent answer but I have delivered you a ro'lockingly good one!

Your answers raise more questions. Are you willing to answer them?


Before i go, a question for you dreadlock. You have seen my posts denoting an interest in the subject of de-regging cars,
you have engaged in debate with me on the subject, yet you chose to withhold your own knowledge on the subject. Was this a) out of spite? b) out of fear/self-interest? or c) duper's delight?

I've with-held nothing. Read my very first post on this forum and related posts. Bear in mind it was six or seven years ago.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby iamani » Sun May 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Hi dreadlock

At the end of the day you offered a critique of my post with questions that bear no relevance to the post in question, from a position of false superiority in that you seem to imply you know enough about 'trusts' ("Oh dear. More of the trust nonsense...") and the NAME to comment - whereas you clearly don't. There actually ARE maybe two mistakes in my post, but you didn't spot them. Try again, i'll wait.

i pointed out that the questions posed bore no relevance to my post - which they clearly don't. What followed was a post from yourself that, rather than admitting your mistake, undertook to muddy the waters by referring to posts other than the one in question, and introducing new questions to confuse the issue further. Just for the sake of ego, pride, saving face. i posted further to clarify, you posted further obfuscation. It's fun up to a point, but it's exhausting to unravel the web you weave when you're called out. So i stop. If you view that as a victory, well, good for you. Far be it from me to come between someone and their satisfaction if it doesn't affect me.

i don't claim to be an expert on trusts or the NAME game, but i am constantly learning and post my thoughts to chart my progress and maybe learn from anyone who wishes to reply. You seem to have got to the point of 'i know what i like and i like what i know', apparently content to rest on whatever laurels you may have while purporting to be knowledgeable in areas that you aren't. What's with that?

If you have questions you think i have not answered then post them - and i will point out either where i have answered them or again tell you why they are un-answered. If they are genuine questions in good faith i might even answer them (if able).

There's a section on this website devoted to trusts, lots of info, so you don't have to go far. i read it now and again - maybe you should consider doing the same?

As for the NAME, here's my latest understanding:

JOHN JAMES DOE - this is the NAME of the Estate. It represents the res in this trust, it doubles as the name or label of the trust and it is created and attached to the new-born via the birth certificate by the Crown. The NAME is written in dog-Latin (a la Glossa) the language of the illiterate and signifies that the entity it represents is dead (a la gravestone inscriptions), all fictions are dead entities.

When the judge calls out "Are you JOHN JAMES DOE?" or "Are you MrJohn James DOE?" it's a loaded question designed to trick you into dishonour with your very first words in court - " Yes, i am". He knows you can't possibly be the fiction yet you claim to be so. It is at this point jurisdiction is gained, your rights are lost and you accept liability and penalties for a NAME that is not verifiably yours.

Mr Doe - or Mr John Doe or Mr John James Doe or Mr J. Doe or Mr J J. Doe etc. These are the nomenclature for the 'person'. It is achieved by adding a 'title' (Mr) to any derivative of the NAME, and doesn't have to be in ALL CAPS.

The Trust is created as a metaphorical vessel to float you on the sea of commerce. The NAME is the name of the metaphorical vessel. The 'person' (Mr Doe) is the metaphorical captain of the metaphorical vessel, and the living man is the metaphorical crew of the metaphorical vessel. The living man john-james is the only authorised signatory (acting in the role of 'person') who can grant access to the trust for anyone who may have a claim against the trust/Estate/NAME. He also agrees to be surety for the account.

i consider it my birth-right to be seen as a 'man' with all rights of a 'man'. This right was taken from me (and almost everybody else) and for nearly fifty years i was unaware that i was merely a 'human male'.
Now i know the truth it is my intent to re-claim my birth-right, but to do this i need to gain an understanding of all forms of law and the means by which it is applied. The subject of the NAME and that of 'trusts' are of vital importance in achieving my goal, hence my posts on the subject. May i ask - what is your goal that being on this site might help you with?

i actually looked at a few of your first posts a little while ago, but i don't recall any mention of you de-regging your car. i may look again. Fact remains that even though my interest has been clear on this subject you failed to volunteer your knowledge even though you knew it might help a fellow aspirant-to-freedom. That's not 'withholding'?

Oh well, that's something to ponder i suppose....

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby Dreadlock » Sun May 21, 2017 8:58 pm

How you view me is entirely up to you and I couldn't care less. My questions are relevent to your claim that the NAME represents a trust - a claim you clearly made and have admitted to believing. Why you continue to state they are not relevant when anyone can read for themselves that they are... mind boggling.

I didn't spot your mistakes? How would you know if I did or didn't?

Furthermore I have not tried to muddy anything. I have been asking for clarification to determine who has made a mistake and what the mistake is. I always admit my mistakes once I believe I have made one. I wrote:
YOu seem to be stating that you accept that the word "person" as used by me, in my post with which you agreed,
represents the CAPS name (consistent with earlier posts of mine). But when you use CAPS it represents a trust. You are therefore stating that you agree with both uses, correct?

This was my attempt at clarification. Everyone can see it for what it is. Now would you care to respond? I'm sorry if I'm exhausting you but clear communication is not easy at the best of times and posting on forums is time consuming and inevitably leads to misunderstandings. Of course you can continue to insult me if you wish - it's certainly an easier option.

For further clarification I also posted:
How and why would T.H.E.Y. create such a trust?
T.H.E.Y. didn't. T.H.E.Y. created the concept and documentary framework (V5) to enable the creation of a trust (a trap, if you will).
It is john-james who creates the trust by completing the V5 as per the instructions of the DVLA in black ink, block caps and an unqualified spurious signature.
If he was looking for equity then he should have created his own (private) trust.

So you are claiming that everytime a V5 form is correctly filled in and signed, a new trust is created? Correct?

Is this your position or not?

i don't claim to be an expert on trusts or the NAME game, but i am constantly learning and post my thoughts to chart my progress and maybe learn from anyone who wishes to reply.

I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do know more than most laymen. You do not appear to be learning at all. You seem to be stuck on the trust nonsense which I abandoned over 3 years ago - having investigated the matter and found it lacking and consequently discovering a much better alternative which stands up to scrutiny.

I am now going to ask you questions pertinent to your "latest understanding" in order to expose the flaws in your beliefs. This is intended to help you - presuming you wish to learn and frankly I'm not sure you do.

JOHN JAMES DOE - this is the NAME of the Estate. It represents the res in this trust, it doubles as the name or label of the trust and it is created and attached to the new-born via
the birth certificate by the Crown. The NAME is written in dog-Latin (a la Glossa) the language of the illiterate and signifies that the entity it represents is dead (a la gravestone inscriptions),
all fictions are dead entities.

1a. What is the purpose of the trust?
1b. Who creates the trust?
1c. What is the value (money, property, real estate, etc.) in the trust?
1d. Where does the value come from?
1e. What are the roles in the trust?
1f. Who plays which roles?
1g. What is the nature of the attachment between trust and child?
1h. What indicates said attachment?

When the judge calls out "Are you JOHN JAMES DOE?" or "Are you MrJohn James DOE?" it's a loaded question designed to trick you into dishonour with your very first words in court -
" Yes, i am". He knows you can't possibly be the fiction yet you claim to be so. It is at this point jurisdiction is gained, your rights are lost and you accept liability and penalties for a NAME
that is not verifiably yours.

2a. Is there any such thing as a policeman or fireman or doctor or nurse or judge or tennis player or footballer etc. etc.?
2b. Is it impossible for anyone to be a policeman or fireman or doctor or nurse or judge or tennis player or footballer etc. etc.?
2c. What trust role are you playing in court?
2d. Are any other trust roles being played? If so what are they and who plays them?

Mr Doe - or Mr John Doe or Mr John James Doe or Mr J. Doe or Mr J J. Doe etc. These are the nomenclature for the 'person'.
It is achieved by adding a 'title' (Mr) to any derivative of the NAME, and doesn't have to be in ALL CAPS.

3a. What does "Mr" mean?
3b. What are the different kinds of legal person?

The Trust is created as a metaphorical vessel to float you on the sea of commerce. The NAME is the name of the metaphorical vessel.
The 'person' (Mr Doe) is the metaphorical captain of the metaphorical vessel, and the living man is the metaphorical crew of the metaphorical vessel.
The living man john-james is the only authorised signatory (acting in the role of 'person') who can grant access to the trust for anyone who may have a claim against the trust/Estate/NAME.
He also agrees to be surety for the account.

4a. Do you have any proof that a trust is a metaphorical vessel?
4b. Do you have any proof that a trust has a captain?

i consider it my birth-right to be seen as a 'man' with all rights of a 'man'. This right was taken from me (and almost everybody else) and for nearly fifty years i was unaware that i
was merely a 'human male'.

5a. How was the right taken away from you?
5b. Why do you think you are human?

Now i know the truth it is my intent to re-claim my birth-right, but to do this i need to gain an understanding of all forms of law and the means by which it is applied.
The subject of the NAME and that of 'trusts' are of vital importance in achieving my goal, hence my posts on the subject. May i ask - what is your goal that being on this site might help you with?

6a. A specific trust is of vital importance. Do you know what it is?

I post to help others and to hopefully learn myself. I also enjoy exposing liars who otherwise would get away with it.

i actually looked at a few of your first posts a little while ago, but i don't recall any mention of you de-regging your car. i may look again.
Fact remains that even though my interest has been clear on this subject you failed to volunteer your knowledge even though you knew it might help a fellow aspirant-to-freedom. That's not 'withholding'?

Oh well, that's something to ponder i suppose....

See my post in this thread dated Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:52 am. My first posts did not mention de-registration but there is useful information in them which might help. What more do you need to know? Do I have to tell you to contact the DVLA or better still the Department of Transport? Do you need help blowing your nose too?

Why the constant attacks on my character? That's something to ponder I suppose...
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

Postby iamani » Wed May 24, 2017 7:18 pm

Hi dreadlock

Well aren't you just the gift that keeps on giving! Thank you for taking the time to reply so extensively, and for your < gracious offer to help me. Indeed i do wish to learn. However, we seem to have strayed far from the intended subject matter of this thread so i will accept your offer of questions to be answered on condition we continue proceedings in a new thread with a title more relevant to the theme. You'll know it when you see it - see you there!

Oh yes, you might want to bring your best sense of humour....

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Lighter Side

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests