"I feel dirty"- Torchmann... "Did you fudge something with your insurance co???"-sarge [S
No I trusted the guy then this story comes out.
Like waking up from rufies at church camp [P
Here in Nebraska the law says(I paraphrase) it's unlawful to transfer or alter the vin or remove identifying marks to perpetuate a fraud
The law does not say it is unlawful to transfer a vin remove or alter identifying marks if there is no fraud involved.
Since we live in a legal system where anything is legal unless it is explicitly out-lawed, If the law does not explicitly forbid it then it is not illegal.
Our legal system is the opposite of what it is in the rest of the world
Here there is no dispensation of rights from the law, rights are natural liberties and the law rules by restricting liberties not by granting them.
reading the constitution through, there is no authority given to government only power.
The 10th amendment defines a totality of 3 legal entities
federal and state institutions which are given powers
And The People from who powers are given
No-where in the constitution is there a dispensation of authority from the people to government.
To understand this requires the understanding that authority is not power
The constitution is a charter creating government, establishing the laws which are to regulate government, and empowering the institutions with the agency to execute them.
from WIKI- "A charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified. It is implicit that the granter retains superiority (or sovereignty), and that the recipient admits a limited (or inferior) status within the relationship, and it is within that sense that charters were historically granted, and that sense is retained in modern usage of the term.
The word entered the English language from the Old French charte (ultimately from the Latin word for "paper"), but the concept is universal and transcends language. It has come to be synonymous with the document that lays out the granting of rights or privileges."
When we British subjects in these American colonies threw off our king we reclaimed the aboriginal sovereignty our ancestors had long ago surrendered to kings.
When we formed a government to secure these liberties we gave it powers but reserved our authority.
But what is authority?
An author is one free to speak and free to act on his word. An author is the master of and owner of his words. If there is a question regarding the interpretation or the intent of a work the author is the authority
By appending the suffix "ity" to the word author you create a new word which is an attribute or quality of the base of the word.
This mechanism applies to every use of "ity" as a suffix in English.
When an author commissions a writer (ghost writer) to create a work for him, the writer is not the author.
The ownership of the words and the rights benefits and powers associated with those words is reserved to the author.
Our founding fathers by prominently beginning the constitution with We The People (in caps so large there is no arguing to the contrary) acknowledged that they are but the writers of the law and not the authors of the law.
As such, the argument that authority over the Constitution belongs only to those who signed it is frivolous.
The Constitution lays down the law that rules over government and subsequent statutes and regulations.
In other words institution has no agency to do other that the law proscribes.
Under the protection of law(protects people):
If the law does not say you cannot, then you can
If the law says you must, then you must.
Under the rule of law(rules institution):
If the law does not say it can..then it cannot
If the law says it shall then it must
When public servants employed in government carry out the duties of the people they are not exercising their or government's authority, they are exercising agency granted under the people's authority.
When the people exercised our liberties to self govern and instituted this system of law the people have exercised through our representatives OUR will by establishing the law and this is why the law is to be obeyed.
You cannot say I don't want to obey the law because I don't like it....
But we obey it because it is our own word which we must keep.
If you don't like it and you don't want to abide by it then you have to convince your peers to instruct our representatives to change it.
That is the only way around it.
it's why the Police have the right and the power to refuse to enforce laws imposed by rouge representatives which the people en masse refuse to abide by...
Not because it's humane... but because it's the will of the people.
Idealistically you could say The will of the people is always superior to the law but you can';t have a majority taking away the rights of a minority.
Practically it's the will of the people within the defined common liberties of the people that is the rule.
Special liberties cannot be construed by law to infringe common liberties.
The right to your personal property is a common right, a shared liberty in common.
If a group of persons as a majority were to steal from a minority it would be the same offense as if one man were to steal from another and the
will of the majority would not constitute
the will of the people.
So the authority being with the people, the people have the right to do whatever they will except as is restricted by law
So if the law says you cannot remove or alter an identifying mark (vin) to perpetrate a fraud then the law does not restrict a person from removing or altering an identifying mark where the act of doing so is not pursuant to the commission of another crime.
If the guy made an oath or affirmation on a legal document that the coup was NOT a reassembled vehicle then the act of tinkering with the vin by buying a title and stamping the numbers into the frame of a reassembled vehicle does constitute a fraud.
But if I had let's say a 57 belair that was rusted out and I owned it...And it was already titled in my name
and I bought a rust free base model 57 4 door for parts, and used the rust free body shell to restore my belair and I transferred the vin tag over.
I did not commit a fraud because I did not lie on a title application.
If I sell it and tell the buyer I restored it with another car there's no misrepresenting the sale and no fraud
Restoring something that does exist does not create something that did not previously exist
yes I would have removed a vin but would not have committed a fraud by doing so.
The act of removing or transferring the vin does not itself constitute a fraud
Misrepresenting facts on a legal document...
yeah thats a big fraud.
