Power Play No Game


Suverans2's picture

What makes you think that it's "your car"? Do you have the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO), also known as a Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO), the true title to that car, signed by the DEALER and notarized by a Notary Public?

If the MCO/MSO, isn't the true title to that car, why does it have to be signed by the DEALER, who is the Author-ized Representative of the Manufacturer, and notarized by a Notary Public?

And, if it is not the true title to that car, why does the STATE want it so badly? Try paying cash for a new car and telling the DEALER that you want to keep the MCO/MSO after it is signed and notarized. I mean, once it's paid for, you think it is YOUR car, right?

Think again. If you are a citizen/subject of a STATE, then the STATE is your Master. And...

Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327.

"The ultimate ownership of all property[1] 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 acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." ~ U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (c.1933) (Brown v. Welch supra)

[1] Property. ...The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal, incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1216

Need we say more?

Samarami's picture
    Can a cop put a tracking device on your car without a warrant? This question is now before the Supreme Court as they decide whether GPS tracking devices can be placed on vehicles to track suspects without a judge’s approval.

It really does not matter. The "cop" is a dangerously armed parasitic robber of state in or out of costume. S/he'll do what s/he pleases. And the court "judge", paid out of the same booty-bag, will agree.

It's like asking, "can an armed robber put a tracking devise on your car?" (So s/he can meet you with a gun and relieve you of your billfold when you come out of a restaurant).

Well, if s/he has a gun, and you don't want to gamble as to whether it's loaded or s/he has the cojones to pull the trigger, then the answer is yes. The advantage, of course, with the latter (non-government robber) is s/he knows s/he is a robber. Sam

Chaeros Galt's picture

Excellent answer my friend, I was to say something alike, but is of no need now!!!

Suverans2's picture

The initial question was worded wrong. The question to be decided, for the card-carrying-members of the Country Club only, is, "Can a cop, legally, put a tracking device on a card-carrying-member's car without a warrant?" The answer, of course, may be 'yes' or 'no', dependent upon their peculiar law.

On the other hand, if we ask the question, "Can a cop, legally, or lawfully, i.e. rightfully, put a tracking device on a non-member's car without that non-member's permission*?", the answer is an emphatic, and resounding, NO! [*If we accept that 'permission' can also be given by 'silence' (failure to rebut), and 'forfeiture' (by trespassing on another man's equal rights).]

Whether the 'cop' has the physical ability to do it, is quite another question, of course. But, if he does do it to a non-member's car without that non-member's permission, he then becomes, as Sam rightly pointed out, nothing more than an "armed robber", with or without his master's "warrant"[1], because he has now violated the Law of Nature, that is to say, the Natural Law of Man.

"The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

Why is it "superior"? Because, "the law of nature [is] coeval with man[2]", and "what comes first in time, is best in law[3]".

That, my friends, is the Cornerstone that is missing in all of your so-called governments.

[1] "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves" ~ John Locke

[2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41

[3] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347.

Suverans2's picture

Some of you may enjoy this, but be forewarned, do not read this with food or drink in your mouth.

A Prayer of Gratitude to Our Benevolent Masters For the Gift of Roads

Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks. We prostrate and abase ourselves before you in great thankfulness and humility for your roads, the mighty thoroughfares you upon us do bestow. Hear our praise!

For if not for your compassion where should we walk or ride? Truly is your mercy great.

And wither shall our feet tread, and unto what desolate shore or rocky hillock shall we wander, should you guide us not, and show us not the way?

Truly, as I walk, the highway shall resound with songs of great gladness, great gladness!

Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks shall we give, for thou art great. Thou art the Builders, the Masters.

The Road Makers.