I’ve been away from my usual activities for a little bit. I picked up the materials to start a drafting project. I’m going to draw an engine that I’ve designed, over the last 40 years or so. I’m drawing it to demonstrate two principles. The first is to get around the pressure and fuel limitations in conventional engines. The second is to create a way to contain combustion in a small zone in the combustion chamber. This engi8ne would have both a load sensitive compression ratio and output speed. What I would do with it, beyond my own amusement, I don’t know. Yes, it would get as lot better gas mileage, perhaps double.
I’ve read so many articles and papers about altering the pressure curve, and they seem to be a partial answer, not really changing ther curver that much. I also want to beat the pressure limit at which detonation and pre-ignition occurs. If the pressure level is physically altered after the fuel is burned, there can be no damaging uncontrolled reactions. It’s just hot, inert gas.
The U. S. Patent Office has always been the most corrupt agency in the U. S. government. It’s that little clause about awarding patents to the applicant “best able to bring a product to market”. That’s why the man who invented the intermittent wiper blade system had to fight Ford for years, and spend 5 million of his own money to get a judgment. At the last that I heard, he hadn’t gotten a dime from Ford. The highest proprietary interest is served. I would rather put it in the public domain and have a thousand little cottage industry shops build it. That can’t be stopped.
Thursday. Mar. 1st, 2012 – With so many issues rising up in debate, it becomes easy to forget that the structural mechanisms have been in place, for 150 years. The general public sees these institutions as altruistic and beneficial. They believe the news media when the Corporate Wars of Conquest are promoted. Unless that changes, people will be led around by the ring in their commercial identity noses.
The Feb. 19th update to “Two Masters” was written with the assumption that people are still free to decide which master they will serve. Taking a position for or against the position would resolve nothing, in the context of that writing. I contend here that, given the options, the question is why people choose to stay in debt slavery, and reject Biblical liberty. For the purposes of this writing, the choice3 of masters was decided when people chose their commercial identity. By voluntarily choosing U. S. citizenship, people have chosen to serve the debt slavery master, in perpetuity, cradle to grave. This is in stark contrast to the Biblical standard. A debtor would serve the lender for 6 years, and be freed from the debt, at the 7th year. In our culture, bankruptcy only frees the debtor to incur more debt. This system of unjust weights and measure deprive people of all liberty and property. It is all debt, from issuance into circulation, into and through the debt slavery of wages, legally defined as corpotrate profits, received as Federal employees. Like it or not, everything that U. S. citizens receive and possess, is taxable. Welcome to the Federal Debt Plantation.
This topic is written with the belief that people still have the choice of which master they will serve. The rebellious streak in human nature wants to be free of any authority higher than itself. That is a philosophical and spiritual impossibility, as I will demonstrate. Most people respond to the principles that I express in these posts with; “Oh all that old Bible stuff doesn’t apply to people today! Times have changed. We’re so much more modern than dirt farmers and illiterate herdsmen.” Are we really so advanced that there are no limits on behavior? The evidence of the news each day say that humanity hasn’t changed a bit, in 6,000 years.
As I’ve written in the past, every conflict has a commercial root. This principle should be obvious. When the numbers don’t match up with expectations, there is conflict. This applies to everything from the price of a candy bar going up a nickel, to the major changes in the economy. The only certainty is that there is a problem, and someone is going to pay for it. These conflicts get out of control because people fail to distinguish between humanity and commercial identity. In those instances when we find that people don’t seem to be the people we thought we knew, it is because we knew their humanity. The standards and behavior change, when commercial identity takes over.
I don’t know if the last decade will ever be completely behind me. There are parts of it that were necessary to change both my understanding, and direction. That, I can accept. The things that I can not excuse, remain. Learning from those experiences does not add value to the specific activities. Learning does bring me principled conviction. Today, I can describe that resolve. Yesterday, I couldn’t.
2 February A.D. 2012
Read the ticket before signing.
Sounds simple enough.
Read the ticket before signing. Front side, back side, third side (if there is one).
Some of the STATEs are figuring out that “we’re” figuring out that they NEVER satisfy Due Process when it comes to Notice.
There is no Notice without the paperwork. A judge can “tell” the defendant what the charge is until that judge is blue in the face, and nothing about Notice will have been satisfied. Notice isn’t satisfied without the paperwork.
There’s a basic sequence of events. First there has to be something actionable. Then, a charge has to be made. Then, a charging instrument has to be printed out (from the computer) and signed by the (at least “a”) witness. (Clerks are not witnesses. If a clerk is the charging witness, then that clerk can’t get anywhere near that case under the disguise of Custodian of Records, AND there’s some question as to whether the court, itself, is now the charging witness, given that the Clerk is the witness solely as a by-product of employment with the court. More details at some other time.) Then, that paperwork has to be served on the defendant “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” to as to allow a “meaningful opportunity to respond.”
As a practical matter, how in the world does anyone enter a responsive plea until one has Notice of what one is charged with having violated?
To enter that plea is to waive Notice.
Where there is no Notice, to pretend that there is is to waive Notice.
To agree to enter that plea, any plea, may also constitute waiver of Notice.
Read the ticket.
Some jurisdictions are now including language in addition to the agreement to appear. The agreement to appear is the equivalent of a personal recognizance bond. Some people go into orbit over that thought. That thought isn’t worth much more than a passing glance, actually. Without the personal recognizance bond, the ticketing officer has the authority also to become the arresting officer. Some would-be defendants play the game that way. They go to jail for a few days and the matter is dropped. That’s not what makes good sense to this author, but to each his own.
The additional agreement language may have to do with entering a plea.
Where a form has language that one is not interested in agreeing to, the solution is to “negotiate” that form. How does one “negotiate” a form? By using a pen and drawing a line through the part that one isn’t interested in agreeing to.
To attempt to negotiate and to be told, “You can’t do that,” is to get evidence of “adhesion.” Without the effort to negotiate, there is no “adhesion.” The instant that negotiations are tried and not permitted, then there’s evidence of “adhesion.” Where the negotiation is not objected to, then there’s nothing more agreed to than the timely appearance (whether by paperwork or also in person). (Not agreeing to appear is not sensible. No doubt someone will press this to that limit. If so, take good notes about what happened and be sure to share that experience.)
Read the ticket.
One does NOT have to agree to enter any plea. Agreeing to appear is one thing. Agreeing to enter a plea is completely another.
Read the ticket. If necessary, “negotiate” that ticket so as to preserve the right of Due Process, starting with service of the paperwork containing the charges alleged. If one agrees to enter a plea, because that’s the language pre-printed on the (back of) the ticket, the one may very well have waived one of the best defenses going: violation of Due Process — no Notice.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org