[prollins]

Thanks for your comment JB.

More interesting info about Georgia…

The online Driver's Manual for 2010 says,

Quote:

Beginning January 1, 2003, no person may be issued a Georgia driver’s license or identification card without providing a social security number at the time of issuance or renewal. Once your social security number is on file, you will not be required to provide it again. Your social security number will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone except as required by law.

I have searched high and low for the “law” that requires providing a SSN. The only department that had a reference was the Department of Natural Resources, and I called them because their website also contains a requirement for SSN for any license.

Quote:

Why do I have to provide my Social Security number in order to buy a license?

Both federal and state law requires anyone buying any kind of license (commercial, recreational, occupational) to provide his or her Social Security number (SSN) prior to the purchase of the license. The law is in place in order to enhance enforcement of nationwide child support laws. The federal law was passed in 1996. The Georgia law passed in 2003. Failure to provide a SSN makes you ineligible to purchase a license. SSNs will only be released to the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

The service agent on the phone referenced OCGA 19.11.1.a1 which says

Quote:

§ 19-11-9.1. Duty to furnish information about obligor to department; use of information obtained; penalty for noncompliance

(a) Any entity in this state including for profit, nonprofit, and governmental employers, upon the request of the department and its authorized contractors, shall provide the department with information, including the name, address, social security number, employment, compensation, and benefits regarding a person owing or allegedly owing an obligation of support for a dependent child.

(a.1)(1) In accordance with the mandate contained in 42 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(13)(A) and notwithstanding any provision of Title 40 relating to motor vehicles as now existing or hereafter amended, the Department of Driver Services shall require an applicant for a driver's license, a commercial driver's license, a learner's permit, or an identification card to provide to the Department of Driver Services the applicant's social security number or certification from the Social Security Administration that the applicant is not eligible for issuance of a social security number because he or she is an alien not authorized to work in the United States as part of the application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to authorize the issuance of any driver's license, permit, or identification card to any person who is not a resident as defined in Code Section 40-5-1. If the legal authorization of such person is terminated or expired, any Georgia driver's license issued to such person shall be revoked. The Department of Driver Services shall provide to the Department of Human Services, in addition to other information required to be provided to the Department of Human Services, such social security numbers of individuals who have been issued a driver's license, a commercial driver's license, a learner's permit, or an identification card. The Department of Human Services shall use the information provided by the Department of Driver Services pursuant to this Code section for the purpose of complying with the requirements of law concerning the enforcement of child support.

The reference to 42 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(13)(A)is another proof that these codes and this law are not applicable to state nationals.

[prollins]

Bing,

I just watched the video again from your link. I am not sure which part I am mistaken about, but I am willing and wanting to learn. I posted a link to local newspaper article in my above post, and my comments were a reference to that article written to follow up the court incident.

I do hear the judge say that he is calling a recess beginning at the 2:07 mark, and that is the part that is confusing to me.

I do not understand the effects of invoking common law in court, and what that does to the standing of the judge and the rest of the parties. “If the common law is envoked, then CAN the judge call a recess” is the question that I need to resolve for myself.

If common law is in effect, what is the essence of the judge calling a recess, and if he can't, then the man in the hat said that the judge was abandoning his court, and the sovereign remaining takes over and dismisses the case.

Interesting stuff for sure.

[prollins]

Franklin, thanks for that comment. I think that the reference you made regarding disassociation with the “nut case” groups or labels would be very beneficial for anyone wanting to contact public servants in any manner.

I really appreciate your opinions and viewpoints.

[prollins]

Further reading

So, according to this article from the local newspaper, the judge called a recess before the FMOL “took over” the court and then later reconvened and now the FMOL is fined $260. So I am confused by the judge bowing and calling the recess and then coming back. Interesting.

[prollins]

Hello again.

Digging up this same topic again, and thinking out loud. After talking with a good friend that is a Chief of Police, he concurs that noticing the Sheriff is a great idea. He has poked around SEDM and FG after being aware of some “travel as a right” situations in his area. He said he could not find his way around the sites. (He is actually a brilliant man, Doctor of Div for a local theological seminary. I think he just got busy and he is on “that” side.)

Anyway, anyone that would like to try to avoid going to the “slammer” and/or the subsequent dragging into the fake court would probably benefit from a sit down with the local Sheriff, fresh haircut, clean clothes, and witness. My COP friend said that the sheriff in almost every case will state clearly that they will honor any warrant or otherwise from a judge, and not bother to look at it or see if it is with merit. Interesting.

I would think that in addition to “noticing” the Sheriff, it would be a good idea to notice the Superior Court judge in the district and maybe even the District Attorney. I am sure it would create quite a ruckus, well at least I think it would. I do believe that having noticed the Sheriff, DA, and Superior Court judge as to any domicile, tax, and citizenship status would go quite a long way toward building the portfolio of sovereignty paperwork.

Thanks for your comments.

[prollins]

It would be nice if YOUTUBE would not have removed that video. SCAMMERS. YOUBOOB also, in my opinion, will not allow the words “familyguardian” or “family guardian” to be used or posted. They have them blocked. Don't ask my what my opinion is based on, cause I won't tell.

[prollins]

I did make it to the law library today, quite impressive seeing codes from all 50 states, and multiple years. I assume that this is no big deal for some of you, but I don't frequent places with automatic doors and security guards very much.

Anyway, I did get a scan from 1930 that shows an honest definition of motor vehicle.

[prollins]

Thanks for all your input JB.

Quote:

CVC 15210(p)(7)

“…In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply.”

Wait a second!! did this say “under this code?”…notice it didnt say “under this division, sub division, chapter, paragraph, section, or sub section, but instead stated “This Code”….

Just to be sure lets check to see if “this code” means anything specific:

CVC 10

Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this code or of any other law, such reference shall apply to all amendments and additions heretofore or hereafter made.

CVC 15

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

So CVC 15210p7 says that if there is a federal definition it MUST be used. The Chief Council for the CHP confirmed this in a telephone conversation…he read it 3 times and I asked him what that meant. He replied “it means that federal definitions trump state definitions.”

I find this part fascinating. I have a similar thing where I am currently.

Quote:

As used in this Code or in any other law of this state, the term:

(14) “Person” includes a corporation.

This is saying something very heavy in my opinion. The definition of “this state” would be good. I will be going through the code to see if there is something similar regarding federal definitions.

[prollins]

Found another one:

Quote:

(23) “State” means a state of the United States and the District of Columbia.

(25) “United States” means the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

I always find it fascinating when the codes specifically reference the 50 states. It is an admission that the other definitions of DON'T include the 50 states. I still think the above definition is misleading.

[prollins]

HAH! I finally found one definition of “state”

“… “State” means a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a province of Canada.”

For a minute I thought I was reading Federal law….oh wait, I am reading Federal law. 😮

[prollins]

I delayed my trip to the library so I could prepare a little more before I get there. I have been searching all through the code and find no definition of “state”, “this state” or otherwise. I think they will only be found in the older versions of the code.

“This State” seems to really put effort into hiding definitions and leaving them out of the code. The section on STATE GOVERNMENT titled “Jurisdiction” starts at § 50-2-20. The “STATE BOUNDARIES” section ends at § 50-2-5. The other 14 entries are not there, and there is no reference that says “repealed” or “reserved”.

So my notes for this section is to copy the history notes on the bottom of the page and use that as a reference when I get to the library. I am amazed and angered that the government can omit things at random for the purpose of misleading the “people”.

Thanks for the input, I am working hard at getting ready for my trip back in time.

[prollins]

'franklin' wrote:

For circumcision and breast implant records, you can write in “Contact TSA” 😮

ROFL 😆

[prollins]

'franklin' wrote:

But Admin would know the answer, she only sleeps one night a week, burns the midnight oil the other nights (so I'm told) 😉

ROFL, I have often thought that “Admin” was about a platoon number of paralegals.

[prollins]

Thanks for your input, I thought you were joking, but verified the info in the link and the article is true, and I am not surprised, but still flabbergasted anyway.

I think that noticing the sheriff along with having some of his business cards at all times would at least make an officer pause and consider. I do like how some of the SEDM materials have a demand response that includes a request for rebuttal and clarifications, and penalties for failing to answer. I also like the transfer of responsiblitity to the non answering party for all liabilities. I might look into this further, and check the case law regarding what exactly I can put into the affadavit. I would like to have a section that details that a failure to respond equals an admission, and that an admission gives me the legal right to print up a form that is from the sheriff to all that encounter me, that I am not subject to statutory code, and to leave me alone.

Then I could show that no matter where I travel. It is interesting to think about.

[prollins]

Well done.