Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

tips_and_tricks · Tips and Tricks for Going to Court

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 2224
  • Category: Law
  • Founded: Mar 28, 2002
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 18752 - 18781 of 19423   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#18752 From: Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...>
Date: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:13 pm
Subject: the lost 13th amendment
toski_tech
Send Email Send Email
 
a few guys researched this and have posted various scans of old books showing the lost "Titles of Nobility Amendment" which was ratified by several states and made it into various books printed about the Constitution.
 
WIKI says this early 13th was "proposed by Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states".
How many states were there in 1810 ?
 
Here is the procedure according to Wiki
 
There are two steps. In the first step, the proposed Amendment must find a national super majority of 67% in Congress, both House (people) and Senate (states).
* This was done, right ?  Should be able to verify in the Statutes at Large ?
 
The second step requires a super-super 75% majority of the states ratifying, representing a majority of the people in the states ratifying. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.[33]
 
I am guessing that, if only 12 out of 18 states ratified the 'lost' 13th amendment ... it never reached full lawful status as a 'cured' amendment ?
 
For Truth, Justice and Liberty,
Don Quixote
 
 
 

#18753 From: "randyconn" <yahoo@...>
Date: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
randyconn
Send Email Send Email
 
Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a
letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses
and goverment contracts traveling freely.

      http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
>
> Here is the pamphlet.  I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
> really on.
> carl
>

#18754 From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 3:39 am
Subject: Judicial Notice: Our Parents & the Public Schools Messed Us Up!
legalbear7
Send Email Send Email
 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

 

Eric Williams, Propria Persona Plaintiff

 

v. case No. 3:11-CV-03001-

 

JUDITH BEARDEN

KENFORD CARTER

COUNTY OF MARION Defendants

 

NOTICE OF IRREFUTABLE FACTS

OF WHICH THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

 

IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OPPOSITION

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

Please be advised that this list of items pertains to the requirement of the presentation of a birth certificate in order for an applicant to be issued a driver license by the State of Arkansas.

This court will please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that all of the items entered herein below are self evident irrefutable facts that cannot be reasonably denied:

 

1. That governments are artificial entities that do not exist in nature;

 

2. That creating an artificial political organization that assumes power in excess of that naturally held by its human creators cannot reasonably be accomplished;

 

3. That as governments are the artificial political creation of men, and that as individual men are not imbued by Nature with Natural individual authority to command other men, that those men who create artificial government entities cannot reasonably have authority or ability to imbue their artificial political creation with authority to command other men who have not freely, knowingly and willingly, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, intentionally surrendered themselves to the authority of such artificial creation;

 

4. That as the foregoing is self evidently true, that it cannot therefore, be possible for the artificial governments created by such men to be imbued by their creators with authority not naturally acquired or held by any one single individual man among those who participated in the creation of such artificial government;

 

5. That it is impossible for any combination of men to properly acquire or in any way imbue themselves with authority as a group, due merely to their numerical combination (or otherwise), to enable themselves to properly claim authority to regulate the activities of other men in the community, absent the willing and intentional voluntary submission of such other men, such other men not having been in any degree informed of the negative consequences to themselves prior to their intentional voluntary submission to such artificially created political authority;

 

6. That it is impossible for any combination of men to properly acquire or in any way imbue themselves with authority as a group, due merely to their numerical combination (or otherwise), in order for such men to properly determine what it shall be, other than the commission of commonly recognized crimes (rape, robbery, murder and trespass) that constitutes the acceptable activities of other men in the community;

 

7. That it is impossible for men who create government to have any proper authority to in any way "vote" themselves (or their self created artificial government entities) into a position of authority over those men and/or women who have not and do not willingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, agree to be bound by such voting procedures;

 

8. Based on the foregoing, that Arkansas has no evidence what-so-ever to prove in any way that I have ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial government, Arkansas;

Bouvier's Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

 

9. That it is significant and relevant that Bouvier Law Encyclopedia provides an act, although intentionally or purposely done, is none-the-less involuntarily done, when it is done under duress;

 

10. That Arkansas and or U.S. citizenship are both conditions of total and complete servitude wherein the citizen of either has purportedly, voluntarily agreed to conform to and obey any and every manner of edict which the administrators thereof deem it proper for them to impose on those who have designated themselves as citizens thereof;

 

11. That is, that there is no irrefutable evidence in the records of Arkansas or any other political subdivision of the United States, to prove that I had been fully and properly informed that United States citizenship is a condition of political servitude and that if I voluntarily claimed such citizenship I would be voluntarily submitting myself to a lifetime condition of political servitude limited only by the grace of the men, such being politicians, who manage the artificial entity they have created for their own personal benefit;

 

12. That as new born infants we humans have no naturally provided frame of reference to enable us to determine whether what we are then taught, at that young age (or during our entire lifetime thereafter), is good for us or not;

 

13. That is, that as such children we are totally at the mercy of government-paid and government-controlled adults who are charged by the government to inflict us with government biased mind controlling indoctrination;

 

14. That is, that as such children our minds are easily manipulated into conforming to whatever degree of servitude may be desired by the government-paid adults who have access to us enabling them to inflict the government's mind-controlling indoctrination upon us;

 

15. That this court must acknowledge the fact that when we humans are born we have no intellectual ability to evaluate in any degree what-so-ever that what we are taught is conducive to our own individual well-being or not;

 

16. That the government of Arkansas has been and is engaged daily in it's self serving indoctrination of every child in this state attending the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools";

 

17. That the children of "Arkansas" are in attendance in such "schools" primarily because the government of Arkansas has mandated their attendance purportedly for the good of the children, but in truth, such mandatory attendance is to allow the indoctrination of the children for the good of the government;

 

18. That as children we humans in this society were and have since birth, been continually subjected to intense unending mind controlling indoctrination to imbue us with feelings of obligations of servitude to the artificial government for the purpose of continually convincing us that we owe fealty and loyalty to such government and that we have a duty to obey and conform to the dictates of the government with no natural right or any right what-so-ever to question or in any way doubt that we have such birth acquired "obligations";

 

19. That we are taught as impressionable young children, that it is shameful and unpatriotic for us to ever question any of the foregoing;

 

20. That the truth concerning the purpose of "requiring" the children's attendance in such government controlled indoctrination centers is to facilitate the indoctrination of the children into being docile taxpayers;

 

21. That it cannot be reasonably denied that no child has ever been naturally born into or naturally born under or naturally born subject to the political dominion of any government, all of which are artificially created entities;

 

22. That as government is an artificial political entity deriving its limited authority from the limited authority of the men who created it, that such government cannot possibly properly have any authority to claim mandatory "educational" dominion over any child, absent the fully informed voluntary compliance of the child's parent(s);

 

23. That as government is an artificial political entity deriving its limited authority from the limited authority of the men who created it, that such government's ability to secure the "voluntary" agreement of parents to send their children to be indoctrinated by the government in the government's indoctrination centers, euphemistically known as "public schools", is only because the parents were themselves indoctrinated in the same manner when they were small children;

 

24. That it is therefore also true that when the government asserts such "educational" dominion over children that such assertion is nothing more than a self-serving misuse and criminal abuse of the power of government, which cannot possibly properly have authority to require such attendance;

 

25. That any act that a young adult (usually of sixteen years of age) may have engaged in pertaining to their "application" for a driver license was engaged in by them as a result of their being subjected to intense intentional mind-controlling indoctrination, prior thereto as small children, while being required to attend the government's indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools", without their ever being told or permitted to be exposed to the truth in regard to their Naturally imbued independent Sovereign political status;

 

26. That the truth that was withheld from such driver license applicants by the indoctrination officers in the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" was that they were born free, with no naturally birth acquired "citizenship" obligation or any obligation what-so-ever to apply for a "driver license" or other government mandated identification paraphernalia;

 

27. That the foregoing was especially true when such children were indoctrinated to believe that their ability to travel on the public way could only be properly exercised through their presentation of a document known as a "birth certificate", to the government's driver license issuing office in order for them to be issued a driver license;

 

28. That when born a human child has at the time of the child's birth not yet acquired the cognitive ability to take notice of any of the facts pertaining to its birth, such as the creation of a birth certificate (if any) or that the child has been "blessed" with an artificial designation known as a "name", as entered on the birth certificate.;

 

29. That at the time of its birth a human child has no ability to know where it was born, when it was born, who its own mother was, or whether a birth certificate was created in regard to its birth, or to know what a birth certificate is, or to even know its own gender or to be aware that there are such gender designations as boy and girl;

 

30. That a human child at birth has not even the ability to know that it has two arms, two legs, ten toes, ten fingers or any other part of its physical body what-so-ever provided by Nature;

 

31. That a name or a "true legal name" are NOT part of the human entity provided by Nature; that is, that a "name" is an artificial designation attached to the baby by the parents, which does not require a birth certificate in order for the parents to be able to relate that designation to their child;

 

32, That the child's parents are required by the government to record the name the parents have selected for their child with the government, on a birth certificate document, and file such document with the appropriate government recording office, thereby creating a legal artificial persona, so that the government can have such artificial persona readily available to enable the government to assign that artificial persona to the child as the child's "true legal name" when the child has been appropriately indoctrinated in the government's indoctrination centers, when the child then "applies for a driver license", as the first order of business during such license application and issuing procedure;

 

33. That when born the human child is totally at the mercy of the adults who will teach the child everything that the child will learn.

 

34. That there is no possible way that any man, woman, boy or girl can have even the slightest personal knowledge that a specific birth certificate has anything what-so-ever to do with their own birth;

 

35. That as far as such authority might pertain to those born here on this land, that the authority of Arkansas is limited to extend only to those persons who have willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the authority of Arkansas;

 

36. That men and women who were subjected to the intense indoctrination as set forth herein above during their childhood, who thereupon "voluntarily agreed" to submit themselves to the authority of the government that caused and instituted their fraudulent indoctrination, such government cannot properly claim such submission to have been done in any truly voluntary manner;

Bouvier, "An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

 

37. That the authority of the State of Arkansas is limited to extend only to and over those men and women who have willfully and intentionally agreed thereto, having been fully and properly informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto;

 

38. That when any man or woman who has been indoctrinated throughout their life to believe that they were born with an obligation to submit themself to the dictates of Arkansas, thereafter acquire an awareness that they were wrongfully and criminally intentionally fraudulently seduced into such belief by Arkansas, that such men and women then, by implementation of Natural Law, have an absolute Natural right to be and are by such awareness, immediately freed from any purported obligation they may have been seduced into agreeing to prior thereto;

 

39. That Arkansas has established that driver licenses will only be issued to applicants who present a birth certificate with their application in order to be issued such license;

 

40. That a birth certificate is a document created at the behest of the government wherein the government of Arkansas thereafter surreptitiously acquires an ownership interest in the "name" entered on the birth certificate, under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202.

 

41. That a birth certificate is a document created by parents at the behest of the government, wherein a name selected by the parents is entered thereon, thereby creating an artificial persona therein, created for the purpose of enabling the government to enter into a contractual relationship with the real live flesh and blood child, who thereinafter, as an adult man or woman, applies for a license, or franchise, to use such "name" as their "true legal name";

 

42. That when a child is born "in Arkansas" that the artificial "name" chosen by the child's parent(s) is entered on a birth certificate and the birth certificate is then surrendered to Arkansas. That thereafter, under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, the ownership of the artificial "name" entered thereon is thereby transferred to Arkansas - that is, it is the ownership of the artificial name that is transferred to Arkansas, not the ownership of the real live flesh and blood child;

 

43. That the purpose of the birth certificate requirement is to have the driver license applicant, as an adult, "voluntarily" claim an attachment to the artificial persona "name" created on the birth certificate, as the applicant's "true legal name", the applicant not being informed by Arkansas that the first order of business in the driver licence application/issuance procedure, is the applicant's application for a franchise to use the name on the birth certificate, the name being owned by Arkansas;

 

44. That then, some sixteen years later, the child, (at that time a young adult), having been "properly" subjected to several years of mind-controlling governmental preparatory indoctrination, becomes a driver license applicant programmed to present what he has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe is "his" birth certificate, to the local Arkansas Revenue Office in order for him to be issued a driver license;

 

45. That the first order of business upon the applicant's programmed "voluntary" act of presenting his application to Arkansas in order to be issued a driver license, is the creation of the applicant's franchise to use the "name" (owned by "Arkansas" entered on the birth certificate), said "name" thereby becomes the applicant's "true legal name" and may then be entered on the driver license with a picture of the "volunteer"; just like a McDonald's fast food franchisee applicant being granted a franchise license to use the McDonald's name to open a fast food outlet;

 

46. That the primary purpose for the issuing of a birth certificate is the creation of a singularly unique artificial persona, such persona being the name conjured up by the child's parents together with the entry thereon of the child's parents names and other relevant unique information such as the date, time, weight, etc. There is no hard factual identifying information entered on the birth certificate that could in any way connect the document to the child (or for that matter, to the child's parents), such as the parent's Social Security numbers or street address upon whose birth it had been created. The birth of the child is merely incidental at that time, being set up for when the child becomes a young adult and after the state has become the owner of the name entered on the birth certificate;

 

47. That the young adults' "official" "voluntary"application for his use of the artificial name entered on the birth certificate constitutes his "official" "voluntary" application for his use of government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on what the young adult has been programmed to believe is "his" birth certificate; thereby the young adult creates a legally acceptable nexus, enabling the artificial entity Arkansas to interrelate as being sovereign over the real live flesh and blood young adult, through the artificial persona "name" owned by the state;

 

48. That in accordance with the foregoing that the "name", then having been combined together with the applicant's picture and signature on the driver license, thereby acknowledges the applicants "voluntary" acceptance of the artificial entity Arkansas as being the applicant's political sovereign;

 

49. That there is no possible way that any human being can ever have personal knowledge as to the events of his or her own birth;

 

50. And acknowledge that no one has any ability to have personal knowledge as to when they were born, where they were born or who their own mother was;

 

51. And acknowledge that no individual man or woman can possibly have any ability what-so-ever to have personal knowledge as to the creation of a document known as a birth certificate purported to be in regard to their own birth;

 

52. That all of such foregoing information is indoctrinated into everyone as children for many continuing years, and quite often, due to the moral decay of this society, the birth certificate's indication as to the father of the child does not necessarily reflect that child's actual sperm donor.

 

53. And acknowledge that the true reason for the requirement of the presentation of a birth certificate in order for an applicant to be issued a driver license is to ensnare the applicant into volunteering into a condition of political servitude, such being "voluntary servitude", in order for the "authorities" of Arkansas to avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude as set forth in Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution; so as to have the applicant "volunteer" "officially" into "citizenship", so that the person can be required to pay taxes and unwittingly "voluntarily" agreeing to submit himself to every manner of regulation possible to imagine;

 

54. And acknowledge that the foregoing is done in order to have the driver license applicant agree, officially, to his "voluntary" use of government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on the birth certificate the applicant so proudly presented to the local Arkansas Revenue Office in order for the applicant to be issued an Arkansas driver license;

 

55. That the nexus enabling the subservient interrelationship between the artificial entity Arkansas and real live flesh and blood men and women has been established through an insidious subterfuge, through apposition, whereby the Legislature of Arkansas has been able to surreptitiously "define" the word "person" through grammatical association of the term "natural person" with "corporations", "partnerships" and "co-partnerships", the latter three all clearly being artificial entities, to surreptitiously "define" "person" to also be an artificial entity, thereby, through "reverse engineering", causing the word "person" to be defined by association as an "artificial person" in Title 27 of the Arkansas Codes;

 

56. That the Arkansas Legislature could not use the words "man", "woman", "boy", or "girl" in the definition of the word "person" because "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl" are not in any way able to be reasonably construed as being artificial entities able to associate directly with the artificial entity, Arkansas;

 

57. That the term "natural person" as included in the definition of the word "person" in the Arkansas Codes is intended to be and is an artificial entity similar in many respects to its definition mates; firms, corporations, partnerships and co-partnerships. That is, all five of these artificial entities are created by voluntary human intellectual activity; all five have official government approved creating documents; all five are registered with the government; all five are obligated to obey and conform to the commands of the Arkansas Legislature and, last but not least, all five have a name conjured up by their private sector creators;

 

58. And acknowledge that the creating document relative to the term "natural person" referenced herein above as being defined in the various codes of Arkansas, is the birth certificate created by the parents of a newborn human baby at the time of the baby's birth wherein the baby's parents enter the "name" conjured up by them and then the parents file the birth certificate with the government just as do the men and women who create firms, corporations, partnerships and co-partnerships when such men and women create the appropriate government designated documents, including therein (but not limited to) the "name" of their artificial persona creations, and then file such documents with the appropriate government office;

 

59. And acknowledge that when the above mentioned birth certificate is filed with the government by the child's parents that the said document then lays fairly dormant in the government's files for the next 16 years. This situation continues until the child purportedly "named therein", having "matured" to the recognized age of reason and accountability, and having been, during those sixteen years, appropriately and fraudulently indoctrinated and subjected to government serving mind-control in the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" for approximately the ten previous years, therein the child being programmed to believe that he was born into citizenship with natural born obligations of political fealty to the artificial government, applies for a driver license. In such government "schools", of course, it has never ever been suggested to the young adult that the government of Arkansas is in any way "artificial". The young adult does as he has been programmed to do by going to the local Department of Revenue Office where he proudly presents "his" birth certificate in order to be issued the much coveted Arkansas driver license;

 

60. That when real live flesh and blood men and women officially "voluntarily" claim the use of the artificial persona "name" entered on "their" birth certificate as being "theirs" such men and women therein "voluntarily" agree to their personal use of government owned property, said property being the "name" on "their" birth certificate, and in so doing the men and women thereby unwittingly and unknowingly, not having been in any way previously informed of the negative consequences of their act, thereby relinquish the individual sovereignty they were born with without ever knowing they were actually born free and sovereign with no natural born citizenship nor natural born obligation of fealty to any artificial political entity;

 

61. That Arkansas Constitution Section Twenty-seven (27) of Article Two (2) prohibits involuntary servitude in the State of Arkansas;

 

62. That there is relevant significance in the fact that Bouvier's Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 therein provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows:

"Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

 

63. That this Arkansas Constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude clearly imbues Arkansas with an implied obligation and a clear duty to provide those men and women who opt out of Arkansas' political dominion some sort of passport type documents to protect such men and women from the enforcement officers of Arkansas and all of its political subdivisions;

 

64. That in regard to the issuance of a driver license, as the government of Arkansas has failed to provide an alternate means or procedure for those of us who do not choose to make an unsupportable claim to a birth certificate of which we know it is impossible for us to have any personal knowledge of such document's actual relevance to ourselves in order for us to apply honestly for, and be issued a driver license, that such failure on the part of Arkansas clearly constitutes Arkansas' acknowledgment that Arkansas can make no proper claim and has no proper ability to command or in any way govern any real live flesh and blood man and woman who is unwilling to commit a fraud by voluntarily "appearing" in the artificial domain of Arkansas under a "true legal name";

(As an aside: Another point in regard to the word "appear". As I understand it, to "appear" means to suddenly materialize, in a somewhat magical or artificial manner, such as is done when an actor in a screen play or stage play dons a role as a fictitious character. As I understand it, in order for me to "appear" in an Arkansas court, I would have to "don" the role of an artificial character, through my voluntary use of government owned property, such property being a "name" entered on a birth certificate filed with the government at the time of my birth, neither of which could I possibly have any knowledge of or control over.)

 

65. Based on the foregoing that when a real live flesh and blood man or woman "appears" in court that they can do so only by donning an artificial persona entity;

 

66. That the appearance of a person before a court is accomplished only by the person's acknowledgment of the person's artificial "name";

 

67. That in a court room setting, absent any objection thereto by the real live flesh and blood man, the acknowledgment of having a "name" by such real live flesh and blood man would constitute his acknowledgment that he has volunteered to don the artificial persona and `appear" in and participate in the artificial realm;

 

68. In regard to the foregoing, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly, intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, given up the individual sovereignty I was born with and thereby ever agreed to submit myself to the political jurisdiction of Arkansas or any other artificial entity, government;

 

69. That for the government of Arkansas to maintain and insist that I should not operate my own private conveyance on the public way of this land because the statutes of Arkansas require all such operators to be issued a driver license prior thereto, would be and is a total absurdity in consideration of the fact that Arkansas has failed and refused to enact legislation that would provide a means whereby I could be issued a driver license without being required to present a birth certificate;

 

70. That for the government of Arkansas to maintain and insist that I should not operate my own private conveyance on the public way of this land because the statutes of Arkansas require all such operators to be issued a driver license prior thereto, would be a total absurdity in the context of my political status, as may be reasonably inferred. Such reasonable inference was recognized and stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity Church v. United States;

 

71. That at the time of his birth a human baby is born sovereign over his own self with no naturally acquired obligation(s) of fealty or servitude to any other human or other entity, and most certainly not to any artificial entity;

 

72. That the natural born independence and individual sovereignty of the individual is recognized in Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution wherein involuntary servitude is prohibited in Arkansas;

 

73. That the acknowledgment of a birth certificate by a real live flesh and blood man or woman is critically necessary in order to establish a legally acceptable inter-relationship nexus with the artificial political entity known as government;

Please be advised, I have been informed by various government officers both in California and Arkansas, that if I were to somehow procure a birth certificate wherein the information entered thereon could reasonably apply to me and use it to apply

for and be issued a driver license, that my life would be much easier. Arkansas State Police Corporal Matthew Sheeley informed me during a "routine" traffic stop on April 17, 2009 of a vehicle where I was riding as a freeloader, that Sheeley didn't care where I got a birth certificate just so long as I got one.

Based on the foregoing:

 

74. That if I were to somehow procure a birth certificate and present it to be issued a driver license that my life would indeed, be much easier.

 

75. That if I were to do as advised by Corporal Sheeley and use information obtained from a grave marker in a cemetery to procure a "legitimate" birth certificate that if I were to present such a birth certificate to the local Revenue Office I could indeed be issued a driver license based on such a fraudulent presentation.

 

76. That if I were to do as advised by Corporal Sheeley that such an act on my part would constitute an intentional fraudulent act on my part;

 

77. That if I were to do as advised and Corporal Sheeley were to discover such, that Sheeley would then arrest me and charge me, quite properly, with criminal fraud;

 

78. That an honest man does not have a chance of being respected by the government of Arkansas;

 

79. That Arkansas has a Constitutional and moral duty to provide me either with an Arkansas driver license without my presentment of a birth certificate or assigning me a "true legal name" or to provide me some other manner of passport type document and other appropriate paraphernalia to protect me from the enforcement officers of Arkansas such as Matthew Sheeley, and its political subdivisions;

 

80. In some quarters it is believed that the courts of the United States and of Arkansas are operating under Admiralty or Maritime rules and that this society is operating generally under Admiralty or Maritime rules. This is purportedly evidenced by the wide use of nautical terms within the commercial community such as "highway" related to "high seas", and trucks delivering to "docks"; babies being "berthed" in "birth canals"; "islands" along the highways; The use by truckers of "bills of lading" rather than "waybill"; "currency" from "currents" of the seas, which "flows" throughout the states; opening the "cargo bay" to unload "cargo"; highways have "shipping lanes"; cars or other vehicles carry "passengers", just like ships; "commerce" is defined as the movement of cargo on the high seas.

 

81. In consideration of the foregoing maritime information, that if the foregoing is true that the courts of Arkansas are operating under Maritime or Admiralty rules in matters clearly and obviously not related to international commerce.

 

82. In consideration of the foregoing maritime information, that the courts of Arkansas are not to be operating at any time under either Maritime or Admiralty rules as such court proceedings might pertain to me.

 

83. In consideration of the foregoing information, that this Federal District Court in Harrison, Arkansas, is NOT to be operating under either Maritime or Admiralty rules in regard to this case that we are herein litigating.

 

84. That the purpose of the foregoing, and the following items, is to provide a basis for this court to require Arkansas' compliance with Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution, which happens to prohibit involuntary servitude in the State of Arkansas.

 

85. I hereby request that the Honorable Judge of this court in acknowledgment of the applicability of the items included in the Notice of Mandatory Judicial Notice that it is self evident and true Items filed concurrently herewith immediately order the Revenue Office of Yellville, Arkansas to immediately provide me with an identification card similar to an Arkansas driver license and license plates for all of the vehicles that I might operate with notations entered in the police computers of Arkansas that when the police encounter me on the highways of Arkansas that such police be informed through their police computers that I should not be stopped nor detained.

Be hereby advised, I freely acknowledge that I am subject in every respect to the common law and may be held accountable under the common law for any injury I might be responsible for in a properly established common law court.

 

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion

_________________________________

Eric Williams, (870) 449-5029

 

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

 


#18755 From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 4:08 am
Subject: Federal Magistrate Acts as Counsel for State Defendants! Unbeeeeelievable!!
legalbear7
Send Email Send Email
 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

 

Eric Williams, Propria Persona Plaintiff

 

v. case No. 3:11-CV-03001-

 

JUDITH BEARDEN

KENFORD CARTER

COUNTY OF MARION Defendants

 

PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

FILED CONCURRENTLY AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE:

1.) NOTICE OF IRREFUTABLE FACTS OF WHICH THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

2.) PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

1. I, Eric Williams, the Plaintiff in this case, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), do hereby present my written objections to this Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (hereinafter "MJ"or "MJRAR" or "RAR").

 

2. This Objection is filed under duress due to the failure of the District Judge to grant me the reasonable sixty day continuance I had timely requested.

 

3. There is no possible way that I can properly address the many erroneous conclusions presented by this MJ in his RAR, garnered by him through his multiple inappropriate ex-parte communications with two defendants in this case, County of Marion and Judith Bearden, by either this MJ or his Clerk, Ashley Bowen.

 

4. However, of even more significance is the unrevealed and undeclared political decision implicit in this MJ's RAR, wherein he continually makes reference to me as though it has already somehow been determined that I am subject to the political dominion of the United States and or of Arkansas, which determination has not been addressed and cannot be addressed by the judicial branch of the United States or of Arkansas, but which must be resolved by the Executive Branch of Arkansas, which I have been endeavoring to do since the very beginning of this impasse back in 2002.

 

5. The fact the Executive will not respond only serves to establish that I am correct in my analysis of the birth certificate issue.

 

6. Accusing this MJ of surreptitiously engaging in a political determination he does not have standing to address might seem like a stinging accusation. After all, the common understanding is, that under the constitutional system of separated powers supposedly prevailing in the United States, the Judicial System is supposed to operate outside the realm of politics. Its principal function in this system of "checks and balances," or so everyone is led to believe, is to check the excesses of the political branches.

 

7. Court cases are purportedly decided according to objective and neutral principles of law, not the ideological values of this MJ or any other judge or by influence of prevailing public opinion. The very legitimacy of the Judiciary, many argue, depends on this separation of law from politics.

 

8. Additionally, the wording, content and general tenor of this MJ's RAR clearly indicate he is functioning more as the self appointed Counsel of and for the defendants rather than functioning properly, as a neutral judicial officer!

 

9. This is particularly evident in this MJ's totally erroneous determination in regard to the wording and intent of Arkansas Codes, § 5-1-109, wherein this MJ's conclusion is exactly opposite of the clear wording and intent set forth therein, as I more fully address in my Brief in Support of this Instant Objection, filed concurrently herewith and incorporated herein, in full, by reference.

 

10. And I must state here that my Brief filed concurrently herewith does not set forth all of the relevant points in regard to this MJ's comments in regard to A.C.A. § 5-1-109, due to insufficient time being allowed by this Court for me to properly address all the issues.

THE FUNDAMENTAL, BASIC, PRIMARY ISSUE

 

11. Although there are three defendants in this case and this MJ, acting on their behalf as their self appointed defense counsel, has "researched" and presented his arguments in regard to their exposure to suit separately, however, the facts this MJ ignored clearly indicate all three of the defendants are exposed to being sued based on two totally separate issues (1) due to the undeniable fact that the State of Arkansas has not presented one shred of evidence that I have ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the political authority of the artificial political entity, State of Arkansas, of which two of the defendants are officers of and the third a sub political entity thereof.

 

12. The second fact establishing the exposure of the defendants named herein to suit by me being the fact that the Arrest Warrants I was arrested under had expired more than two years prior to my arrest, notwithstanding the totally absurd erroneous convoluted manipulated reasoning presented by this MJ in his comedy show RAR, which I totally expose in my Supplemental Brief filed concurrently herewith.

 

13. (It must be noted here again, that my political status as a separate Sovereign entity was forced upon my by the State of Arkansas through its failure to perform its duty to those over whom Arkansas claims political jurisdiction, specifically, being Arkansas failure to provide a means whereby those individuals who insist on being truthful, may be issued a driver license - once more, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license).

 

14. In his RAR this MJ states on page 9 thereof, under "Injunctive relief" that Under the United States Constitution, the State of Arkansas is protected from any manner of suit or relief by an immunity inherent in the Federal Constitution, including the Eleventh Amendment, however this MJ is in error in this assertion, due to this MJs failure to understand and acknowledge the Political status of this Plaintiff.

 

15. The United States Constitution, Article III, Section Two, provides as follows, (in relevant part): "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... to all Cases; ... to Controversies ... between a State ... and foreign States ... "

 

17. As I have never knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I contend that I fall under the Constitutional category of a foreign State (that does not constitute a claim that I am a foreign state).

 

18. The Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides as follows, and most certainly does not accord Arkansas immunity from suit by this Plaintiff: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

 

19. Please take note that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a suit instituted by those among the Posterity of the People of the United States class, as such class established themselves in the Preamble, among which Posterity I claim my Political Status!

 

20. Once more, as I have never ever knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I have not entered into the political status of a citizen of any of the Fifty States that comprise the Federation known as the United States of America.

 

21. As I very clearly stated in my Complaint, particularly in the Supplemental Supporting Brief #1, titled, "PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM - WHO I AM AND WHO I AM NOT", I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the People of the United States as they proclaimed themselves in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, I claim to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776!

 

22. Please take note that there is no mention what-so-ever in Article III or in the Eleventh Amendment pertaining to the People of the United States. Please take further note that the Preamble to the Federal Constitution proclaims (in relevant part) that the purpose of the Constitution Ordained and Established thereunder, was/is for the purpose of enabling the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to Themselves and to their Posterity. There is no mention therein of any such application to citizens of the United States, created in the First Article of the Federal Constitution.

 

23. Yes, I am aware of the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case - however Dred Scott was totally nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

24. The Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship by birth as it is self evident that citizenship is an acknowledgment of a political subservience to a political superior, and the Fourteenth Amendment is the government's work around, to enable the government to indoctrinate children, freeborn, fraudulently in government controlled schools, to believe they attained the subservient status of United States citizenship by birth.

 

25. Such children are also fraudulently taught that the Fourteenth Amendment declares citizenship by birth, which any proper student of English grammar will know is not true, that is, U.S. citizenship by birth is clearly absent from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, due to the explanatory clause, "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

 

26. And, as a minor but relevant aside, no one has ever been born in the United States, such being a totally artificial entity that does not physically exist - please take note that I most certainly do not claim that the United States does not exist.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

 

27. COMES NOW Eric Williams, Plaintiff in the above entitled case, to request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREv"), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the Natural condition of human beings:

1.) No human infant has cognitive ability to take notice or any of the facts of its birth;

2.) No Birth Certificate includes information through which it could be determined which human infant's birth it was created in regard to;

3.) Due to the circumstances pertaining to the creation of a birth certificate there is no possibility that the infant upon whose birth it was created could claim an ownership interest in said document or in regard to any information entered thereon;

4.) Due to the circumstances of the creation of a birth certificate there is no possible way any of the information entered thereon at the time of its creation could provide any meaningful identification information needed in order for the State to create positive identification for the purpose of issuing a driver license to a driver license applicant;

5.) At the time a birth certificate is created there is no information entered thereon that would serve to identify who it was that created the document or who it was that owned the name entered thereon;

6.) That the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Section Twenty-seven of the Arkansas Constitution both prohibit involuntary servitude;

7.) That a claim of citizenship constitutes the acknowledgment by such claimant of the claimant's political subservience to a political superior;

8.) That at the time of a child's birth the child is politically independent with no birth acquired obligation of political fealty to any political entity;

9.) That the State of Arkansas has no authority to require an individual of sixteen years of age who has not volunteered himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas to have a driver license in order to operate his own automobile;

10.) That in order for the State of Arkansas to gain authority over an individual in order for the State of Arkansas to have authority to require that individual to obtain a driver license prior to operating his own automobile, the State of Arkansas must, through some means, entice the applicant to voluntarily enter himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas;

11.) That under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, the State of Arkansas becomes the owner of the names on all birth certificates recorded in the State of Arkansas five years after the said names are last accessed by their original owner;

12.) That when an applicant for a driver license presents a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license the applicant must first be issued the applicant's "true legal name", without which, the state has no standing to require the applicant to apply for a driver license or to in any way comply with the statutes enacted by the state legislature.

 

28. And, additionally, I further request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, again pursuant to FREv Rule 201(c)(2), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the artificial nature of the State of Arkansas:

1.) That prior to July 4, 1776, all political authority wielded in the then Thirteen Colonies of North America was derived from the Monarch of the British Empire, King George III ("KJIII");

2.) That on July 4, 1776, upon the presentation of the Declaration of Independence ("DOI") the previous political authority of KGIII, ceased to exist in that land area which had prior thereto been under the dominion of KJIII;

3.) That upon the publication of the DOI all individual designations of political status of any description or authority under KJIII immediately ceased to exist and all the former subjects of KJIII became politically equal with none, or any combination thereof, having any political dominion over any other individual or combination thereof;

4.) That is, that on July 4, 1776, all former subjects of KGIII became individually politically sovereign over their own individual person with no political obligation of political subservience to any political entity that might be created by any of them, absent their individually determined freewill agreement (See acknowledging dicta of CJ John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dal/US 419 - prompter of the Eleventh Amendment);

5.) That prior to July 4, 1776 there was no country known as the United States of America and no politically sovereign independent states existing on the east coast of North America;

6.) That the creation of the Thirteen Political States and of the United States of America came as the result of the intellectual activity of the humans involved and that although it may very well be a natural act for humans to organize a government that such political organizations are not and were not created by an independent unilateral act instigated by Nature;

7.) That the DOI clearly acknowledges and proclaims that each individual man and woman is born free and independent with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the DOI further provides and recognizes the natural right of people, when dissatisfied with the mode of government they are subjected to, that such people have the natural right to disassociate themselves from such association and form an association according to their individual inclinations;

8.) That the provisions of the DOI do not indicate that it takes more than one individual to determine he does not desire to associate with or be subject to the political dominion of those who are bent on controlling every aspect of his private life, as currently is the condition of those individuals claiming to be citizens of the United States.

 

29. The Fundamental. Basic, Primary Issue in the Arkansas state courts and in this instant law suit, is the Political Relationship between Arkansas and myself. This is in question due to the failure and refusal of the State of Arkansas to provide a means whereby a driver license applicant who does not have a birth certificate to present to the State, in order to be issued an Arkansas driver license could be issued such license; And, in conjunction with the foregoing, as an equal and parallel issue, being the refusal of the State of Arkansas to explain how the State acquires political subservient servitude of individuals born free and politically independent (as is proclaimed in Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, where it proclaims that "All men are created equally free and independent ... To secure these rights governments are instituted ... deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."), while the State at the same time maintains its compliance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; both of which deny the ability of Arkansas to command any individual into a condition of servitude, political or otherwise - so how does Arkansas work around these several constitutional barriers? And why will Arkansas not answer that most reasonable question?

 

30. Please let this court be advised, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license, it is Arkansas who has failed to provide a reasonable alternative to its birth certificate requirement that has prevented me from being issued an Arkansas driver license! (All alternate means of issuance set forth in the Statutes of Arkansas are based on the presentation of a birth certificate in order to acquire such alternate means).

BIAS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AGAINST PLAINTIFF

 

31. The apparent preconceived bias of this MJ is most clearly revealed in his comment near the bottom of page 4 of his RAR, where he gratuitously wrote: "The Arkansas General Assembly obviously felt that it was not appropriate to allow a defendant to fail to appear for court, avoid arrest, and then have the benefit of having the original charges dismissed."

 

32. Although I contend that this MJ's analysis of the Arkansas statute of limitation provisions is ludicrous and more than somewhat convoluted, and exactly opposite to the actual wording of that provision, I would generally agree the foregoing snip might reasonably apply to an accused who fit into the unique mold cast therein by this MJ (which I contend does not exist in the Arkansas statute of limitations provisions, but only in the biased mind of this MJ), and I would agree with the MJ's view on this if an accused had indeed failed to appear and then worked diligently to avoid arrest in order to allow the statute of limitations to expire so that such an accused could avoid facing the original charges lodged against him, however, in this case such an analogy does not apply to me.

 

33. I had most certainly not failed to make myself available to the Arkansas District Court as this MJ totally misrepresents in his mind boggling RAR, for trial on August 12, 2005, and neither did I take any evasive actions to avoid arrest on August 12, 2005 or thereafter, as I set out in mind numbing detail in my Supporting Brief #4, filed with my Complaint, together with exhibits and other relevant documents filed concurrently therewith, and incorporated therein by reference, totaling some 340 pages.

 

34. The relevant Supporting Brief #4, setting forth my conduct on August 12, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference. It seems abundantly clear that this MJ did not bother to read this Supporting Brief prior to coming to the erroneous presumptions he entered into his highly prejudicial RAR, which I am not able to properly address herein due to the time limitations improperly and unreasonably imposed upon me by this inconsiderate Court!

 

35. Additionally, in regard to this MJ's erroneous presumption stating or at least strongly implying, that I had striven to avoid arrest during the years the statute of limitations was running, I hereby incorporate from my Complaint in this instant case, Supporting Brief # 2, in its entire 19 pages as all are relevant, but particularly the information in subparagraphs 1 through 5, on page 12 thereof, wherein I present details of five encounters I had with Arkansas Law Enforcement where, in none of those incidents did any of the police officers find any 2005 or 2006 County of Marion warrants for my arrest in their State Police Arrest Warrant database.

 

36. It is clear to me, that due to his intense bias against me that this MJ was not able to read this exhibit or comprehend that such events totally negated his preconceived presumption that the reason I was not arrested during the running of the statute of limitations was because I had intentionally skillfully avoided any contact with any Arkansas law enforcement.

 

37. Yes, I hid from law inforcemt by hiding myself it the Basxter County jail for six days so no Arkansas law enforcement officer would be able to find me on the streets of Arkansas - GET REAL!!!

 

38. If this MJ's analysis of the wording of the Arkansas statute of limitations was to be applied to all arrest warrants then no arrest warrants would ever expire, that is, according to the reasoning of this MJ, there is no statute of limitations for arrest warrants in Arkansas!

 

39. The bias of this MJ against me is further evidenced by the fact that he instructed his Law Clerk, Ashley Bowen, to contacted the clerks of the District and Circuit courts of the County of Marion, requesting that they furnish documents needed by this MJ to enable him to perform his self apointed role as Counsel for the defendants.

 

40. In a letter faxed to the District Court Clerk, Martha Moore, Ms.

Bowen simply requested docket sheets. I went to both clerk's offices on February 10, 2012 wherein I was furnished a copy of Ms. Bowen's letter by District Clerk Martha Moore who informed me that she had faxed only two pages to Ms. Bowen.

 

41. However, the Circuit Court Clerk, Dee Carlton, informed me she only talked to Ms. Bowen on the telephone and had not asked for or received a fax request from Ms. Bowen, and that Ms. Bowen had only requested docket sheets during that first call. The Circuit Clerk informed me she sent two pages of docket sheets to Ms. Bowen, and sent nothing else, indicating she had not sent the additional 13 pages I showed her that I had received from this MJ with his RAR. But then the Circuit clerk also informed me that Ms. Bowen had

called again later and talked to another Circuit Clerk who had faxed additional papers to Ms. Bowen.

 

42. I was then informed that the second clerk that had faxed papers to Ms. Bowen was not in the clerk's office at the time I was making the inquiry on Friday, February 10, 2012.

 

43. According to this MJ's RAR, on the bottom of page 2 thereof, this MJ indicates he had obtained docket sheets from the Marion County Clerk, attached thereto as Exhibits A1-A13, while the number of exhibits provided to me were numbered A1-A14.

 

44. It is obvious that the exhibits included with the MJRAR include substantially more than mere docket sheets, especially since the two docket sheets from the Circuit Clerk had been reformatted so that both docket sheers were presented on one exhibit, Exhibit A1.

 

45. The question begged by this MJ's request is what significance or need would there be for this MJ to review docket sheets? And why did the Circuit Clerk send additional documents?

 

46. Could it be that the purpose of this MJ's request was intended to be a hint to the County of Marion clerks that this MJ wanted documents that would serve to bolster this MJ's predetermined decision to construct justification to recommend that my Complaint be dismissed?

 

47. How can it possibly be appropriate for a MJ to contact defendants to initiate an ex-parte request that defendants provide him with documents pertaining to a case he is adjudicating, with no notice to the Plaintiff?

 

48. If this MJ wants to act as counsel for the defendants then he should first resign as a CMJ of the Federal Court!

 

49. The foregoing begs the question. Who else did this MJ or his Clerk call requesting information that would bolster his determination to construct a Recommendation that my case be dismissed?

 

50. Who would it be that would be best positioned to provide this MJ with documents from this voluminous case file that would serve best to help this MJ construct his predetermined dismissal recommendation? It is my clear understanding that Asa Hutchinson is still on this case as counsel for all three defendants, and that Asa Hutchinson has previously been a prosecutor for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas??? And that the questionable integrity of Asa Hutchinson is fairly widely known.

 

51. I want a subpoena issued for the telephone records of Ms. Ashley Bowen and Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski for the dates January 27 through February 2, 2012, inclusive.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of Judicial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

 

52. In order for me to address the issue of Political Jurisdiction in the Arkansas courts the first pleading I filed was a motion for an Evidentiary Hearing which Judge Bearden characterized as a Preliminary Hearing. That hearing supplanted the Arraignment proceeding that had been originally scheduled for that day. That hearing dragged on for seven months comprising four court hearings until the charges against me were dismissed by Judge Webb because I had brought to his attention that the warrants he was proceeding under had expired at least two years prior to the day I was arrested.

 

53. An Arraignment was never conducted in the Arkansas courts and a plea was never entered in that matter. Moreover, the proceedings in the Arkansas courts were conducted entirely in Administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as was acknowledged by Defendant Judge Bearden during a colloquy she participated in during the preliminary/evidentiary hearing of November 23, 2009, as is more fully set forth on page 16 of Exhibit #1 (and audibly on exhibit 1a), concurrently filed herein with my Complaint.

 

54. The Fundamental Basic issue in those four hearings was the issue of Political Jurisdiction. Please see Exhibit 8 filed with my Complaint wherein I set forth twenty examples of previous appellate court case rulings establishing that once jurisdiction is challenged the court cannot move forward to a prosecution of the factual issues until the issue of jurisdiction is established; and that the court cannot simply claim jurisdiction, jurisdiction must be properly established with factual evidence, properly proved.

 

55. There are many different aspects of jurisdiction, the most common being subject matter and personal. Both of the foregoing presume Political Jurisdiction has been established, which is rarely raised, however, in the case at hand, pertaining to me, addressed in the Arkansas courts subject hereof, the only jurisdictional issue addressed was Political Jurisdiction and such issue was addressed only in administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as has been erroneously represented by this MJ in his RAR!

 

56. I contend that it is totally impossible for any court of Arkansas to determine the political jurisdiction of Arkansas over an individual who has not volunteered to submit himself to the political dominion of the state of Arkansas, as is clearly implied in the closing words of Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, "... from the consent of the governed".

 

57. This is why I Served a Request for Admissions on Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, State Senator Johnny Key and Representative Monty Davenport, but the primary official with the responsibility to address this issue would be and is, Governor Mike Beebe.

 

58. However true that may be, the point here is that until the Executive of Arkansas establishes it has properly established that it has political dominion over me, honorably acquired, in full conformance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution, it would be totally impossible for any lesser official of Arkansas to have authority to require me to conform to any Arkansas rules. Please understand that the foregoing is not stated from any manner of rebellion, it is stated as a matter of Natural and Constitutional Law!

 

59. When Arkansas purports to establish a requirement that all drivers apply for and be issued a driver license Arkansas thereby imbues itself with a requirement to provide a means whereby every applicant who is otherwise qualified may be issued such a license.

 

60. As I stated in my Complaint, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license. When I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000 I immediately presented myself to the Revenue Office in Yellville where I attempted to apply for a driver license however the clerk refused to issue such license to me because I am unable to and refuse to present a document I know I do not know was created as a record of my birth, and, more to the point, heretofore no Arkansas official has been willing or is willing or able to present me a reasonable explanation as to how Arkansas acquires such dominion over anyone, or why Arkansas requires such a spurious document as a birth certificate to be presented by a driver license applicant, when there is no information what-so-ever on that document that contributes any information what-so-ever to the establishment of positive identification, or which could connect that document to the applicant absent the "voluntary" unsupportable claim of the applicant.

 

61. Why do the clerks of the Arkansas Revenue Offices never ever ask a sixteen year old driver license applicant if the applicant can present proof that the birth certificate being presented by the applicant was created at the time of the applicant's birth?

 

62. Please be reminded that it was Arkansas that has refused to establish a means by which I could be issued a driver license without my knowingly committing perjury and at the same time voluntarily relinquishing the condition of Freedom with which I was born, as is purportedly protected under Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution.

 

63. I contend that due to the fact that Arkansas has intentionally failed and refused to provide me a means of being issued an Arkansas driver license without me committing perjury and/or giving up every aspect of freedom I was born with, that Arkansas has thereby voluntarily abdicated any possible claim it might have reasonably had to require me to procure an Arkansas driver license or to exercise political dominion over me in any manner.

 

64. How is the foregoing not a reasonable position under the circumstances presented?

 

65. I contend that the forgoing totally forestalls any manner of judicial immunity that Defendant Bearden might otherwise be entitled to because before the judiciary of the State of Arkansas can have authority to proceed judicially over anyone (wherein judicial immunity would automatically attach) the Executive Branch of Arkansas must first comply with Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of its own Constitution by negotiating some manner of contractual agreement with the individual, which is what I have been attempting to do since I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000.

 

66. I contend that Arkansas uses the "voluntary" presentation of a birth certificate by a driver license applicant to surreptitiously comply with the Constitutional restraints herein mentioned, without Arkansas properly informing the driver license applicants of how they are being manipulated, as is more fully set forth in my 45 page Supporting Brief #6 filed concurrently with my Complaint which is hereby incorporated herein, in full, by reference.

PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of Prosecutorial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

 

67. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant Kenford Carter, likewise establish that Mr. Carter has no refuge in any manner of immunity.

 

68. Additionally, I contend that the MJ in this matter has stumbled when he contended in his RAR that Defendant Carter on January 20, 2010 appeared in the Circuit Court of the County of Marion where this MJ contends that Defendant Carter filed a nol pros motion that was ignored by Judge Webb, when Judge Webb elected instead to grant my Motion to Dismiss.

MANIFEST BIAS OF MJ AGAINST PLAINTIFF

 

69. I contend that the foregoing statement of this MJ serves once again to demonstrate the bias and prejudice of this MJ against me because Defendant Kenford Carter had nothing what-so-ever to do with any of the proceedings in the Circuit Court. The name of the Deputy Prosecutor in the Circuit Court was Christopher Carter, which I was careful to point out in the 340 pages I filed concurrently with my Complaint, which it is clear that this MJ did not read much more than the first page or two thereof, and indexes of the exhibits and supportive briefs, but instead, relied on information he improperly garnered from the clerks of defendant Bearden and County of Marion and elsewhere when he appointed himself as Counsel for the Defendants.

 

70. If this Court permits, I will file extended written objections to this MJRAR I will set forth therein additional evidence of this MJ's bias against me and more fully and properly address the errors in his RAR.

 

IMMUNITY OF COUNTY OF MARION

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of the lack of

Immunity of the County of Marion in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

 

71. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant County of Marion, together with additional information I present in my Supporting Brief filed concurrently herewith, likewise establish that the County of Marion has no refuge in any manner of immunity, and as is further evidenced in the fact that County of Marion allowed its clerk to communicate information in a totally inappropriate ex-parte communication with this MJ initiated by this MJ.

 

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

 

72. Therefore, based on the reasons set forth herein above and in Plaintiff's Supporting Brief referenced and incorporated herein, Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION be Stricken in the interest of Justice and as a matter of Law, and that the defendants' motions to dismiss should be denied or, in the event that the Judge in this matter needs more information to justify such dismissal, that this Plaintiff be accorded an appropriate extension to allow this Plaintiff to create and file a more comprehensive objection to this MJ's RAR, And, additionally, that the judge assigned to this case read the entire case file, including all exhibits and Supporting Briefs filed concurrently with the Complaint, and that this Plaintiff be accorded any and all other just and proper relief to which this Plaintiff might be entitled.

 

PROCEEDING AT ALL TIMES

UNDER THREAT, DURESS AND COERCION!

 

_________________________________________

Eric Williams, Propria Persona

 

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

 


#18756 From: Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 6:53 am
Subject: Re: the lost 13th amendment
cliff_bass
Send Email Send Email
 
Why are you relying upon the Constitution, an untitled document that was done by deputies which were appointed by the states with the specific instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation, an internal document only?

__________________________________________________

By New-Hampshire, "to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of the federal union."


Massachusetts, "in conformity with the resolution of Congress recommending a convention for the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the preservation of the union."


Connecticut, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union."


New-York, in the same words.


New-Jersey, "for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the union, as to trade and other important subjects, and of devising such other provisions, as shall appear to be necessary, to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof."


Pennsylvania, "to devise such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the union."


Delaware, in the same words, with a proviso, that each state shall have one vote in Congress.


Maryland, in the same words, without the proviso.


Virginia, in the same words. This state passed the first law for appointing delegates to the convention.


North-Carolina, "for the purpose of revising the federal constitution."


South-Carolina, "to devise such alterations as may be thought necessary, to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states."


Georgia, "to devise such alterations as may render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union."

_____________________________________________________

Why would you even consider relying upon such document as the said "guys" have supposedly produced?

The first union is still there.

--- On Wed, 2/29/12, Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...> wrote:

From: Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] the lost 13th amendment
To: ottopartss@...
Cc: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 7:13 AM

 

a few guys researched this and have posted various scans of old books showing the lost "Titles of Nobility Amendment" which was ratified by several states and made it into various books printed about the Constitution.
 
WIKI says this early 13th was "proposed by Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states".
How many states were there in 1810 ?
 
Here is the procedure according to Wiki
 
There are two steps. In the first step, the proposed Amendment must find a national super majority of 67% in Congress, both House (people) and Senate (states).
* This was done, right ?  Should be able to verify in the Statutes at Large ?
 
The second step requires a super-super 75% majority of the states ratifying, representing a majority of the people in the states ratifying. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.[33]
 
I am guessing that, if only 12 out of 18 states ratified the 'lost' 13th amendment ... it never reached full lawful status as a 'cured' amendment ?
 
For Truth, Justice and Liberty,
Don Quixote
 
 
 


#18757 From: Justice <justice@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: US Supreme Court: license & registration within a state's powers?
deepwithinsi...
Send Email Send Email
 
Barry,

Help me word this question.

The real issue is not the "right to travel," for this is well established. 

Rather the fundamental legal question is several fold: 1) whether personal use of the highways is a property right of individual liberty, and 2) whether the use of an automobile for travel on the public highways is adjunct property right of liberty; and 3) whether the state can compel the surrender of these personal rights by statutory extortion, i.e. requiring the procurement of the benefit of a certificate of title; and whether the procurement of the certificate of title shrouds the property in the cloak or status of a "motor vehicle" thereby converting the unalienable right to a privilege subject to the motor vehicle code.

On 8/17/2011 3:50 PM, Legalbear wrote:

I’ve seen a lot of research on “right to travel”, but, I’ve never seen anyone address this case. Please note the references to “commerce”:

 

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 US 610 - Supreme Court 1915

 

Description: Description:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar/tl.png

235 U.S. 610 (1915)

HENDRICK
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND.

No. 77.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued November 11, 12, 1914.

Decided January 5, 1915.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, STATE OF MARYLAND.

611*611 Mr. Jackson H. Ralston and Mr. Osborne I. Yellott, with whom Mr. Clement L. Bouve and Mr. William E. Richardson were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge and Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, for defendant in error.

618*618 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error was tried before a Justice of the Peace, Prince George's County, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the Motor Vehicle Law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found guilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court — the highest in the State having jurisdiction — where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose but in substance as follows:

The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a Justice of the Peace for Prince George's County by the State against John T. Hendrick for violating § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant 619*619 in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's County and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law. He was brought before a Justice of the Peace and fined fifteen dollars after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued — a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by § 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal.

The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (c. 207, Laws 1910, 168, at p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions:

The Governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year (§ 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horse-power — six dollars when 20 or less; twelve dollars when from 20 to 40; and eighteen dollars when in excess of 40 (§ 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of two dollars an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause 620*620 (§ 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, non-resident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the State in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc., may under specified conditions obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license (§ 140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted (§ 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the Act go to the commissioner, and except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the State itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin.[1]

621*621 Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because — It discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the State; exacts a tax for revenue — not mere compensation for the use of facilities — according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws.

If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the State we will not assume that upon a proper showing this will be denied. The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker — prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other States under the plain terms of § 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295, 296; Missouri, 622*622 Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648, and cases cited.

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the States for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the State of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the State put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious.

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines — a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the State's action is always subject to 623*623 inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30, 31; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 136; N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392; Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 298; Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 568; Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280, 291.

In Smith v. Alabama, supra, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness and obtaining a license for which a fee was charged. The language of the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said (p. 480):

"But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the State or in commerce among the States."

The prescribed regulations upon their face do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable.

In view of the many decisions of this court there can be 624*624 no serious doubt that where a State at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefore. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the State itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair and practical standard they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 699; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 548, 549; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 329, 330; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 405; and authorities cited. The action of the State must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the State, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the State, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. In that case a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the State; while here the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways and to charge for the use of valuable facilities.

As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper — essential indeed — and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure 625*625 and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent.

There is no error in the judgment complained of and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

[1] "140a. Any owner or operator not a resident of this State who shall have complied with the laws of the State in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such State, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said State, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this State, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year, without complying with the provisions of Sections 133 and 137 of this subtitle; if he obtains from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best; provided, that if any non-resident be convicted of violating any provisions of Sections 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e and 140l of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said Sections 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators thereof; and the Governor of this State is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with the proper officers and legislative bodies of other States of the Union and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this State will be recognized by such other States, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other States the privilege of using the roads of this State as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this State by such other States."

 

 

 

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

 


#18758 From: enilak666@...
Date: Sat Mar 3, 2012 8:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
enilak666
Send Email Send Email
 
What "things" have changed since that time? Have the laws that protect the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights? I believe the issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.
 


--- On Wed, 2/29/12, randyconn <yahoo@...> wrote:

From: randyconn <yahoo@...>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 6:23 AM

 
Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses and goverment contracts traveling freely.

http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
>
> Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
> really on.
> carl
>


#18759 From: "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
Date: Sun Mar 4, 2012 9:41 am
Subject: RE: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
originalfrog...
Send Email Send Email
 
> What "things" have changed since that time?

The consciousness of the people has changed.  Their willingness to waive
rights for privileges has never been higher.

> Have the laws that protect
> the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the
> state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights?

Since winning the drivers license, registration and insurance issues
three times three different ways in California, I can only conclude that
the people (at least the ones I personally know) cannot be bothered to
know law or about rights and other involved issues that take more than
15 minutes of thought.  The last time I won, the judge read a short list
of reasons why I won to the filled courtroom, and then the next guy who
was charged with the exact same charges as I was, and standing directly
in line behind me, proceeded to plead guilty and accept punishment.
Apparently he had been day-dreaming during the preceding twenty minutes.
That was the last time I ever had to deal with the issues, in 1985.

There have been a few key facts revealed here on this list that go
routinely ignored by most, because voluntary slavery is very
comfortable, until it isn't anymore. One is the true status of what
people call, without knowing which ones they are, "the legal tender
laws".  It is very important to know Thomas Jefferson's (as an example
of a free man from that period) definition of "dollar" that is
permanently enshrined in the law.  Then if one thinks that is a wrong
definition, one should offer the new one and the date they believe it
came into existence.  Anyone here care to give it a shot?!

(Oops! That could be interpreted as a Socratic question, so let me
provide my answer: Barry might deign it worth his time because it is his
list.)  I personally get tired repeating myself.

On another note, the last two days have provided me with two
confrontations with city police wherein I was asked for identification.
The encounters ended without me showing any "ID" (I know what the Q in
IQ stands for...what does the D in ID stand for??) but both parties were
invited to drop any official persona and act as friends in the
neighborhood.  This invitation was accepted and they got my nickname
that friends call me, and they never said they wanted any more.  I
educated them, and let them know that I would never use the violations I
showed them they were already guilty of in connection with these two
meetings we had (a freebie??).  Because I did not want to waste time, I
dismissed them after proving that they were not ready for trouble and
that nobody wanted any anyway, right?

The technical brick was California Penal Code 810 among a few others.

Imagine when asked for ID, and if you are in a hurry, you reply with (in
a strange alien sounding voice) "take me to your leader".  Failure to
provide identification documents coupled with a demand for an
"immediate" trip to the magistrate, versus a trip that contains
"necessary delay" (such as with a rights waiving subject compliant one)
would bring into question WHO gets to feel your disqualification wrath
next, according to PC810 provisions.  Today my contestant for
credibility explained that no magistrate is on duty on Saturday.  I told
him how finding malfeasance and misfeasance was not as challenging as it
once had been and that he probably would not want to cause trouble by
having me require the law be followed in every jot and tittle!

So, instead, we all decide to have a nice day, right?  Right.  OR we are
off and having fun in a new charade designed to keep locals apparently
employed.  This is the subject for discussion I would raise with the
first person I failed to disqualify (so far, nobody has qualified,
boo-hoo-hoo!):  Would you like this to cost the system the most or the
least?  I can modify my reactions in the interests of the common good,
but current events have me in a quandary.  Only a few years ago when I
was being trained to manage a few million dollars of what I refer to as
"mind money", there were only "3 trillion dollars" in the world's credit
system.  Today, the number grows by billions with each breath.  Last
biggest number I heard was in the hundreds of trillions.  I cannot find
a volunteer Certified Public Accountant who wants to go on record
auditing and preparing tax returns for the monetary instruments that I
present to him for that purpose, which I received in trade or in return
for my time, etc.  None has yet known of the Kahre case!!!  So, are we
after a big bottom line on this case, or the smallest possible?  I will
try to please!  Are we laying them off or making busy work for them??
How many can we cram into this bus??

> I believe the
> issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a
> privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all
> seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda
> to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.

It's a matter of admissions and confessions made by the proud arrogant
ignorant willing subjects who waive the right in return for the
privilege.  It's because of lies they believe and even defend!  They do
it out of ignorance, laziness, stupidity, fear, cowardice, greed, lack
of morals, convenience and expedience.  I never look to the court to
instruct me, even though it might do so.  I look to instruct the court!
(If I'm in a charitable mood - as my time here runs out I'm getting
really cranky!)

Regards,

FF

#18760 From: "Mike" <mikeo11136@...>
Date: Sun Mar 4, 2012 5:55 pm
Subject: IRS Levy
mikeo11136
Send Email Send Email
 
How do I stop the IRS levy on my pension and social security without giving up
my rights or property? I have requested proof of authority but get no response.

#18761 From: lg900df@...
Date: Tue Mar 6, 2012 3:06 am
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 
Re: How do I stop IRS Levy on pension/SS?
Answer:  Short answer for immediate remedy is to try some of LEGAL BEAR"S package.
 Or use in combination with some other aspects as discussed below.

Let's focus on some principles some of which you know:
  1. Fact: The government of the US is a thief, liar and deceiver. How are you ASSURED of this? Well...firstly its their actions and.... if you take the time to research....Its own organic laws of the USA expose the territorial limitations of its laws and show ALL of its origin in power and authority as linked to that territory. [reference to learn a lot: www.edrivera.com]
  2. Observation: What acknowledgement from that government will you receive back for what could be a valid argument you make? Answer: At best silence...maybe your money forwarded to you. 
  3. Observation: What is the worst fear of a thief, liar, or deceiver? Answer: EXPOSURE! NEVER OVERLOOK THIS! That same government does NOT like being EXPOSED at being a thief, liar and deceiver. [So you can continually certified-mail pummel various parties complaining the govt. of the US is "DECLARING WAR ON YOU" by taking your food, shelter, pursuit of happiness, ability to pay medical, etc.}. Such parties are the  Senate IRS Oversight committee, Congress-slime, President, Dept of Treasury, etc.the Taxpayer Advocate [saying you aren't a taxpayer but the IRS is stealing from you as if you were}, etc. Hint: By using very strong words you WILL get their attention for they have MANDATES to circumvent certain situations. By using words swiped DIRECTLY and by reference to the 1st law of the USA, the Declaration of Independence and by proclaiming yourself non-violent, you won't get yourself in trouble. [Suggest you take a highlighter to that document and NOTE any similarity to your situation.] Your goal is to RAISE your DOOR to the SQUEAKY ONE that in the eyes of management is this decision: Is it worth it for us to continually steal from this man, or are his complaints getting so hard to ignore that we should just let him go?
  4. Fact: It is very difficult to prevent a determined thief from stealing or being a liar or deceiver.
  5. Observation: Which is more valuable to you....having the chances to tell government employees the truth or having all the money--that they now steal from another--to potentially give to you?
  6. Observation: Keep this in mind for it appears to be working in part. Part of what the IRS does is simply: (1) 'to get your attention...and (2).to bring you back in compliance and keep you there." Those are THEIR words FYI.


--

rock.com


#18762 From: Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 2:59 am
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
knot_disclosed
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi,
     I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

Many thanks
Larry Barron
 
When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
--Audre Lorde

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?

#18763 From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
westernwit
Send Email Send Email
 
1)  "Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a cruel master." -- Pres. George Washington
Accepting SSI and SSDI makes you a definition of a dependent, that is NOT sovereign. 

2)   Make a standard letter to the Student Loan folks listing your circumstance, ie disabled and such.  Attach a statement from your physician attesting to the facts.
Set the letter up so that all you need change is the date for submitting it to whom it may concern.  Make lots of good copies of the Physicians Statement for attaching to the standard letter. (Always save the original to make copies from...)
Each time you get a demand from these blasted student loan people, change the date on the standard letter, staple a copy of the Phys. Statement  and pop it in the mail.

3)   Stop making deals with the US Government.



From: Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...>
To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS Levy

 
Hi,
     I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

Many thanks
Larry Barron
 
When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
--Audre Lorde

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?



#18764 From: Coalbunny <coalbunny@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
html5lover
Send Email Send Email
 
Larry you have to fill out a form to have the student loans forgiven based on permanent disability.  Along with that form you need a medical doctor to diagnose you are permanently disabled.  The process can take a couple months to complete, and then anywhere from 2-5 years as the trial period in which you are not billed.  At the end of the trial period they will decide if you are too disabled to work or not.
Hope that helps,
Carl


On 3/6/2012 7:59 PM, Larry Barron wrote:
Hi,
     I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

Many thanks
Larry Barron
 
When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
--Audre Lorde

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?

#18765 From: lg900df@...
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 
Re: Become sovereign and SSI and SSDI
Answer:  No need to become what you already are--just simply declare your independence and cite the 1st law of the USA as authority. Oh...you don't know what the first law of the USA is? Well....google "Organic Laws of the USA" and find the House of Representatives website and start reading. FYI: Loose the term sovereign please....its been trashed by those in the movement who proclaim "sovereign citizen"...an OXYMORON...for ALL citizenship entails ALLEGIANCE  and if you have alligience, then obviously you aren't sovereign. 

Re: Any way to get rid of Student loan people.
Answer: Yes....stop talking to them on the phone. Get a PO BOX or UPS Store Mailbox, jerk your mailbox out of the ground, refuse all that type of mail. Don't place a forwarder at the PO. Anything you get in the mail that is garbage,cross out your address,  mark "No such Addressee/Return To sender" and drop back in a mailbox--hopefully in the town just over from your town. Now NOTICE CAREFULLY....all debt collectors fall under federal law when they send you stuff marked: "This is from a debt collector". A debt collector to invoke the jurisdiction in federal law must either find you where you signed the original contract or where you reside. Here is a clue: Only YOU yes YOU can claim a residence. So....if YOU don't claim a residence and offer no strong evidence thereof, you make it very difficult for them to PLACE you there. They simply don't have that power. 

--

rock.com


#18766 From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Thu Mar 8, 2012 12:14 am
Subject: Amazing video about Tenn. locals opposing tyranny w/ arms!
legalbear7
Send Email Send Email
 
If they can do it, why not us? Only this time with arms that
come from creative use of the law. Very inspirational:

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an
email to:
tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com
IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your
spam folder)

#18767 From: "stalwart1776" <jmr3749@...>
Date: Thu Mar 8, 2012 4:06 am
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
stalwart1776
Send Email Send Email
 
26USC6331 does not apply to people not employed by the government. The Code
Federal Regulations for 26USC6331 is 26CFR301.6331. The 301 regulation are
referred to as "housekeeping" regulations per U.S. Supreme Court Chrysler Corp.
v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). "Housekeeping" regulations are for government
only.

United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83Rd Congress - Second
Session 1954, Volume 3 Legislative History Regulations, page 5225 and 5226 reads
as follows: §6331. Levy and distraint - This section corresponds to that of the
Bill except the revisions noted below and a clerical change.

The section continues in effect the provision s of existing law relating to
distraint and levy (see section 3690 and 3692 of the present Internal Revenue
Code).

Your committee has clarified the provisions of the House bill by expressly
providing that accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or election
official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or
instrumentality may be levied upon serving a notice of levy on the employer (as
defined in sec. 3401(d) of such officer,  or elected official. The change in
this section makes unnecessary the change from existing law in the definition of
person in section 6332(c) of the House bill, and accordingly that section has
been amended to restore the definition or person contained in section 3710(c) of
the 1939 code. The provisions as to levy on salaries of Government employees are
the same as the applicable to any other delinquent taxpayer.

The section retains the rule of present law which permits seizure immediately
after notice and demand in the case of jeopardy, and in cases not involving
jeopardy permits seizure only after the expiration of the 10 day period
following the issuance of notice and demand. However, existing law provides for
immediate seizure only with respect to taxes other than income estate and gift
taxes. The section changes present law with respect to jeopardy cases by
permitting seizure immediately after notice and demand in the case of all taxes,
including income, estate and gift taxes.

Who is trying to collect on the student loans?



--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>      I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go
ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are
my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I
NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental
disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is
there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP
sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the
income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my
disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for
the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.
>
> Many thanks
> Larry Barron
>  
>
> When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when
we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that
we were never meant to survive.
> --Audre Lorde
>
>
> Medicine did this to me!
> Whats your excuse?
>

#18768 From: paraclete45@...
Date: Fri Mar 9, 2012 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
paraclete45
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello tips,

  IRS code section 6331 also applies to "instrumentalities of the United States." 
An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything that is created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an instrument.
Title 28 USC section 3002(15) defines the United States.
Because your Social Security Card is an instrument, and you are obligated on it and by it, then it follows that Title 26 section 6331 applies to you.
The remedy is not to go into a state of denial, but to exercise "rescission of contract" and "release of powers of appointment," which effectively divorce you from 26 USC 6331.  To remain divorced, one may never, EVER, use that SSN again for any reason that may involve receiving any sort of government benefit.

May you be richly blessed!
Bernie
 Paraclete45                          
mailto:paraclete45@...
Phones from the USA:
cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
land line:  011-507-771-4948

#18769 From: "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
Date: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:55 am
Subject: RE: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
originalfrog...
Send Email Send Email
 
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: frogfrmr@...
> Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-
> American stance
>
> Please forgive me if I am asking stupid questions, but I have not been
> included in this ongoing discussion..I WANT TO KNOW MORE!!

I think that any question is better than no question!

> I have this weird opinion that I, as a free American citizen, should
> not have to give my personal ID info to any hired jackanapes who asks.

I know what the "Q" in "IQ" stands for.  What does the "D" in "ID" stand
for?  The ID as opposed to the EGO?  Just kidding.

> I know this sounds reactionary, and hope that you might show me or
> tell me, what authority they have ( unless I am caught committing a
> crime of some kind) to demand my personal information under threat of
> hauling me off to jail?

I know of no law, and no one has been able to show me any law, that
requires one not under contract to prove one's identity.  And I count on
the law that requires an "immediate" visit to a magistrate, California
Vehicle code 40305 (versus a visit after necessary delay, section 40302)
when I fail to provide such identification and demand the immediate
hearing, whereupon my plan if I ever get that far is to disqualify both
other participants.

> And regarding a local political issue, does the local governing body (
> in this case, the Borough Assembly) have the right to effectively TAKE
> part of my land, without giving me notice?
>
> I hope you will direct me to answers to these two questions.

Regarding your political issue, it has been said that politics is that
which is unsettled in the law.  I don't know enough about your situation
to make comment upon it.

Regards,

FF

#18770 From: lg900df@...
Date: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:59 pm
Subject: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 
A VERY nice summary below. Very nicely stated!
I know from experience though that when confronting employers with this,
that they will IMMEDIATELY call the IRS agent and for some, their own
attorneys. All Levy notices conveniently plaster the IRS agent phone
number on the form EXPECTING employers to call them where they can get
them to literally do ANYTHING they ask. 
Yes, even though you remind employers that courts rule the IRS is not
responsible for advice and YES even though you remind them that the IRS
is under the Dept of Treasury and the Dept of Treasury is executive and
that branch does not make or interpret law. They ignore and call them
anyway. [That is what SHEEPEOPLE do--i.e. call their enslaver's with the
pretty badge and ridiculously ask, 'does this mean someone is free?"
Seriously, what answer WOULD they expect?]
 The attorneys will advise "it is an interesting interpretation and maybe
has legal merit worth pursuing for your employee.....but frankly, do what
the IRS tells you too." And the IRS will tell the employer that "The
employee took the law section out of context." Further, they tell the
employer that the law section was made brief and certain sections WEREN'T
 included on the back of the levy notice specifically for that purpose:
i.e. that it would CONFUSE by indicating to the employer/employee that
the levy notice applied only to govt. employees. i.e. that a reading of
that plain English is not how the IRS interprets that section of law. 
Been there and DONE that. Incredible isn't it?

#18771 From: lg900df@...
Date: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 

One of the best summaries on IRS Lien's and Levy's was done by the late Robert Clarkson of the Patriot Network. Robert was a veteran and real hero 'patriot' offering many people help. You'll find it a very useful read.

You will find his information here by scrolling down the left side under "Removing Lien and Levy":


--

rock.com


#18772 From: "stalwart1776" <jmr3749@...>
Date: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
stalwart1776
Send Email Send Email
 
in·stru·men·tal·i·ty (nstr-mn-tl-t)
n. pl. in·stru·men·tal·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being instrumental.
2. A means; an agency.
3. A subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or
policies are carried out.

26 USC § 3308 - Instrumentalities of the United States

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (whether enacted before or after the
enactment of this section) which grants to any instrumentality of the United
States an exemption from taxation, such instrumentality shall not be exempt from
the tax imposed by section 3301 unless such other provision of law grants a
specific exemption, by reference to section 3301 (or the corresponding section
of prior law), from the tax imposed by such section.

Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law
(see 5USC553 (b), (c) and (d)). Benefits are exempted, which Social Security is,
under 5USC553 (a)(2).

Chrysler v Brown states that the 301 (26CFR301.6331) regulations are strictly
for government. Enforcement is by substantive regulations. The 301 regulations
are not substantive.

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, paraclete45@... wrote:
>
> Hello tips,
>
>   IRS code section 6331 also applies to "instrumentalities of the United
States."
> An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything that is
created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an
instrument.
> Title 28 USC section 3002(15) defines the United States.
> Because your Social Security Card is an instrument, and you are obligated on
it and by it, then it follows that Title 26 section 6331 applies to you.
> The remedy is not to go into a state of denial, but to exercise "rescission of
contract" and "release of powers of appointment," which effectively divorce you
from 26 USC 6331.  To remain divorced, one may never, EVER, use that SSN again
for any reason that may involve receiving any sort of government benefit.
>
> May you be richly blessed!
> Bernie
>  Paraclete45                          mailto:paraclete45@...
> Phones from the USA:
> cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
> BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
> land line:  011-507-771-4948
>

#18773 From: lg900df@...
Date: Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:48 am
Subject: Re: Re: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 
Good point on instrumentality...excellent point.

However we need to promulgate no myth regarding contracts--even though you might find in your life certain adversarial parties might "try to fling &hit at the wall and hope it sticks." In other words don't give the adversary ammunition even he doesn't have.

Fact:
  • Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related: THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. [although one could argue govt. workers and those under oath might be 'stuck'] Adhesion is is defeated on face value. If adhesion contracts existed, no one could be bound by a new contract--e.g. they would be stuck to all that silliness people claim from birth certificate 'adhesion' and hence devoid of free will to contract. Yes, that book by Mercier is a JOKE and even laughed at by judges and attorneys. Yes, that bunk about bank disclosure cards adhering you is MORE bunk. [Look at the card]
  • "Four Corners Rules on Contracts": Not disclosed within 4 corners of document, it isn't valid.
  • You APPLY for SSA [and SSN's], you do not CONTRACT for either. Otherwise SS would be mandatory on government and certainly they don't want that. How do you know its an application? Answer: What does it say on the top?  http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf  Was anything promised in return on the 4 corners? Did SSA sign the document? Whose property is the SSN? What did you commit too? Answer: Probably that the application was truthful. [Easy to fix any inaccuracies with attachment. For example redefine US Citizen as simply "in possession of birth certificate indicating birth in XYZ" {not state of xyz}].



--

rock.com


#18774 From: BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...>
Date: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:09 pm
Subject: IRS Levy
nosaj8700
Send Email Send Email
 
* Stalwart:

You wrote:  "Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and
effect of law."

In effect, you have written "The U.S. law is not the law."  The only reason for
the existence of the United States Code is to break down the statutes passed by
Congress into organized titles, subtitles, chapters, etc. for ease of reference.
The code does not contain anything (other than chapter headings and cross
references, etc.) that are NOT law.

The regulations are, of course, different as you have pointed out.  Only those
substantive regulations issued by secretaries or other agency heads (with the
authorization of Congress in the law itself) have the force and effect of law.  
Other regulations are administrative or interpretive and do not have the force
and effect of law.   Some judges refuse to make that proper distinction.
*

#18775 From: paraclete45@...
Date: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy
paraclete45
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello all of you great Tipsters!!!
The poster of the message identified by a designation, "dave.wissel" mentions several, unrelated issues, but most of the comments do not seem to merit any comment.  They  have as much validity as his allegation that no adhesion contracts are valid.

The comment was made that
" * Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related:  THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. "

I do not agree with the above assumption that it is a FACT that no adhesion contracts are valid.  I base my disagreement on the plain wording of the last court decision cited in the definition for "Adhesion contract" in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 38,  which I quote in full;

"Adhesion contract. Standardized contract form offered
to consumers of goods and services on essentially
"take it or leave it" basis without affording consumer
realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions
that consumer cannot obtain desired product or
services except by acquiescing in form contract. Distinctive
feature of adhesion contract is that weaker
party has no realistic choice as to its terms. Wheeler
v. St. Joseph Hospital, Cal.App., 63 Cal.App.3d 345,
1 33 Cal.Rptr. 775, 783; Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v.
Perkins, C.A.Or., 347 F.2d 379, 383. Not every such
contract is unconscionable.
 Lechmere Tire and Sales
Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
503
."
  
Nowhere do the court cases question the validity of any adhesion contracts, much less ALL adhesion contracts.

"dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.

Life is more peaceful when one learns the law, then sticks to it.

May you be richly blessed!
Bernie
 Paraclete45                          
mailto:paraclete45@...
Phones from the USA:
cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
land line:  011-507-771-4948

#18776 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:21 am
Subject: The Foundation of Judicial Immunity - by Attorney Gary L. Zerman
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


The Foundation of Judicial Immunity
by Attorney Gary Zerman

First, is the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), a decision written by Justice Holmes.  There Holmes stated at 205:  “Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form.  She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.”  In affirming the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, Justice Holmes stated:  Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”  (at 207.)

Peter Irons, in “A People’s History of the SUPREME COURT (1999) Penguin Books, discussed the Buck v. Bell case at 252 stating:

 “… His [Holmes] opinion reeked of the arrogance of aristocracy, and could easily have been written by Herbert Spencer.  ‘It is better for all the world,’ Holmes pontificated, ‘if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.  [P] Five decades later, a journalist who tracked down Carrie Buck and dug into old records discovered that she had been committed to Virginia’s ‘State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded’ only because she had been raped by the eminent doctor who employed her as a housekeeper.  Her daughter, Emma, was a perfectly normal child, and the ‘eugenic expert’ who recommended her sterilization was later honored by the German Nazi regime for helping draft its ‘Race Hygiene’ law, which laid the tracks that ended in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other death camps.  Holmes knew nothing about the scientific fallacies of the ‘eugenic’ movement; more important, he did not feel any duty to look behind the fabricated record in the Buck case.

Immunity allowed Justice Holmes to act with impunity while he disregarded basic rights due Carrie Buck.

Second, is the case of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). There, Judge Harold Stump was sued by Linda Kay (Spitler) Sparkman,  because, when she was fifteen-year-old, without her knowledge or consent she was sterilized, after Judge Stump granted a “PETITION TO HAVE TUBAL LIGATION PERFORMED ON MINOR AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT” brought by the mother-Ora Spitler McFarlin’s attorney and signed an order for the sterilization.  The “petition” claimed she Linda was “somewhat retarded.” Linda Spitler never appeared in court, never had counsel. never had a chance to appeal, never even knew what happened (as she was falsely told she was going to the hospital - to have her appendix removed) and never was retarded.  Her mother brought the petition because Linda Kay had started dating older boys and young men, and the mother was fearful her daughter would get pregnant.  Later Linda Kat  got married, becoming Mrs. Sparkmanm and after repeated unsuccessful attempts by her and her husband to have children, she sought medical help.  She was then told by a doctor that she could not, as she had underwent a tubal ligation - told by the same doctor who had sterilized her without her knowledge and consent.  Mrs. Sparkman also sued the doctor, her attorney and her mother

Justice Byron White (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Associate Justices Blackmun, Renquist and Stevens) wrote Stump v. Sparkman, which reversed the appellate court’s denial, and upheld the federal trial court’s grant of absolute judicial immunity for Judge Stump. Justice White’s decision is absent of any Constitutional authority for the immunity.

To their credit, Justice Stewart (joined by Justices Marshall and Powell) dissented.  At p.365 Justice Stewart wrote:

 “… and I think that what Judge Stump did on July 9, 1971, was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.” [continued at 369:]  “The petitioners’ brief speaks of ‘an aura of deism which surrounds the bench …’  Though the rhetoric may be overblown, I do not quarrel with it.  But if aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from liability such lawless conduct as took place here.  And if intimidation would serve to deter its recurrence, that would surely be in the public interest. (ftnt.9 omitted.)

Aura of deism?  Such lawless conduct?     

The underlying appellate decision Sparkman v. McFarlin, 552 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1977), a 3/0 opinion by Judges Swygert (joined by Judges Wood and East), held Judge Stump did not have immunity and did not have jurisdiction to sterilize young Linda Spitler.  At p.174 Judge Swygert wrote:

“…Although this grant of judicial power is broad, we cannot accept the assertion that it cloaks an Indiana Circuit Court judge with blanket immunity.  He may not arbitrarily order or approve anything presented to him in the form of an affidavit or petition.”

At p.176 Judge Swygert held that to order sterilization under the circumstances here:

 "...we would be sanctioning tyranny from the bench.  There are actions of purported judicial character that a judge, even when exercising general jurisdiction, is not empowered to take.(ftnt, 7 - omitted). … [P] Finally, the petition and order were never filed in court.  This kind of purported justice does not fall within the categories of cases at law or in equity.

Never filed in Court? We would be sanctioning tyranny from the bench?  Tyranny - that is exactly what the Supreme Court justices committed in Stump v. Sparkman when they reversed Judges Swygert, Wood and East, giving immunity to Judge Stump.  ... GLZ








#18777 From: lg900df@...
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:13 am
Subject: Re: Re: IRS Levy
dave.wissel
Send Email Send Email
 
Reply:
Re:Not every such
contract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales
Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
503
."

Answer: 

Here is the court case I found. 

It was a case of a fellow applying for a credit card and agreeing to be bound by the agreement:

"(I) We agree to surrender credit plate on request and to be responsible for all purchases through its use until surrendered or until the company has been notified of its loss or theft in writing." After he had signed this application...."

[Hint: Sounds like he agreed in writing eh?? Sounds like 4 corners to me???]

Here is the EXACT findings regarding "unconscionable"....

We do not regard the agreement as having been so unconscionable as to require that it be not enforced (cf. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F. 2d 445 [D.C. Cir.]). We merely hold that all doubts as to its interpretation and as to the meaning of the card itself are to be resolved in favor of the applicant for the card.
There is every reason of public policy for protecting consumers from contractual provisions, not brought home to them, which are or may be unconscionable. See Corbin, Contracts, Section 1376; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.) Section 68; Williston, Contracts (2d ed.) Section 1751B

{Hint: Sounds like the court is ALMOST finding the contract unconscionable simply because the consumer is at a slight disadvantage.....yet he clearly was not FORCED to sign the contract....it was just a credit card application.]


By reference to the word "every" in Black's, obviously this Mass. Court found a few valid. Of course the Supreme Court of the US found Negro's and Japanese unequal to others at one time--so relying upon the courts will ONLY and I repeat ONLY yield you an OPINION. 

The definition for which Black's draws is one of the courts--namely that one party is generally at a disadvantage to the other and unable to modify the terms as in "take it or leave it." So thus THIS definition of 'adhesion contract" is a different one in that simply one is being offered a "take it or leave it contract" with the party at a clear disadvantage. I sincerely doubt anyone is so "forced" as to that he MUST accept the terms of the credit card contract. Next understand that the reference in the PAYTRIDIOT movement of "adhesion contracts" is taken out of context compared to this court definition. They assume it binds beyond the terms which aren't even spelled out.

Re: "dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.
Answer: Only an IDIOT doesn't understand this. I use this method all the time to correct government documents: "Signature is invalid without attachment". However the idiots in the paytriot movement assume applications with NO REFERENCE in their 4 corners to something external somehow BINDS someone as do CONTRACTS. First they are APPLICATIONS and NOT contracts.Secondarily without a reference spelled out clearly, how can they bind? Next the idiots in the paytriot movement assume Birth Certificates bind the person as some kind of chattel. Huh? Another crazy notion NOT worth planting in the heads of adversaries. 
You didn't mention it but the Constitution might be a legal document but on its face without more, is not a contract.





--

rock.com


#18778 From: "Carole" <Carole11@...>
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:26 pm
Subject: MP3/Video Player
carodien
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi All,   I like to listen to audio's that are posted on our groups from time to time, but had trouble because a 2 or 3 hour audio was hard to listen to all at once.   Bought an MP3 player but it didn't allow me to stop in the middle of a recording and resume play whenever I wanted.   I found one that allows that and it is very reasonable and just thought I would share it with the group.   It is a Sansa Fuse MP3/Video Player and it plays video ( small screen) and audio and allows you to resume from the place you paused.   I just got mine from Amazon for less than $40,00 and it has very good sound and controls.   Just sharing.    Carole
 
 
"Those people who will not be governed
by G-d will be ruled by tyrants."  William Penn

#18779 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:52 am
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court Brief: Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our American Judicial System?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 

Is Fraud a Way of Life in Our
American Judicial System?



The following Brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24, 2012, and entered upon the Docket March 1, 2012.

Pursuant to Rule 15.3, the Court has given opposing counsel until Monday, April 02, 2012, ten days from today, to oppose this Brief.

Please note that this matter is one of out and out fraud from its inception, wherein there was no Notice whatsoever to appear for an arraignment, Plaintiff was not present, did he have any knowledge of such proceeding, and when inquired of the court reporter named in the 11/24/09 Minute Order for a transcript of this proceeding, was informed that no such proceeding took place.

Upon being so informed by the court reporter, he asked her if she would prepare and sign a Declaration establishing that there was no such arraignment or criminal charges brought forth. She so did, and the declaration from this court reporter has been constantly set forth showing the fraud of this such so-called "conviction."

The implication of this matter is that unless the U.S.Supreme Court reverses, the government can now, through it courts universally applied, see through a "conviction" of anyone they wish of any criminal charge without notice, knowledge, presence, or criminal charges, and can see that that one be imprisoned on these supposed "charges," and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is true even if the person acquires the declaration of an official court reporter name it the record that no such event transpired. This is the issue now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which decision will finalize this question whether such fraudulent action is lawful within these United States.

For those with legal interests, you will find herein a plethora of legal authority referencing the effects of fraud on the courts of America. The question is, can we rely upon these authorities. We shall now see if fraud is now the way of life to be expected in our judicial system of America.

Ronald Branson


------/------/-----/-----/-----/-----/-----


No.  11-9026

Filed February 24 2012 and Placed on Docket March 1, 2012

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_____________________________

 

RONALD BRANSON, PETITIONER

VS.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET, AL, RESPONDENTS

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

 

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00565-ODW,  NINTH CIR. CASE  No. 11-56857

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

 

                             RONALD BRANSON

                             - - - - - OTSEGO ST., # X

                             NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA. 91601

             (818) 310- 8999

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION  PRESENTED  FOR  REVIEW

 

Is Petitioner Entitled to a Record, Questions on Appeal, and an Opening Brief Prior to Summary Affirmation of Dismissal by the Ninth Circuit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST  OF PARTIES

 

All parties do not appear in the caption on the cover page. A full list of all parties to the proceeding in this court whose order is the subject of this petition is as follows:

 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

OFFICER KEVIN BAYONA

DOE 1 / aka MARVIN GROSS

DOE 2 / aka MELONY SCHOENBERG

DOE 3 / aka NANCY S. GAST

DOE 4 / aka MICHAEL JESIC

DOE 5 / aka ANITA DYMANT

DOE 6 / aka PATTI JO MC KAY

DOE 7 / aka SUNJAY KUMAR

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

                                             Page

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW                                                 2

 

LIST OF PARTIES                                                                                       3

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                              4

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED                                                            5

 

STATUTES AND RULES                                                                            6

 

OPINION BELOW                                                                                        7

 

JURISDICTION                                                                                             7

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                                  8-15

 

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT                                                    16

 

CONCLUSION                                                                                             17

 

APPENDIX A:  Order of Ninth Circuit filed 10/25/11                                18

APPENDIX B:  Order of Ninth Circuit filed 12/8/11                                  19

PROOF OF SERVICE                                                                                  20

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

 

CASES                                                                                                      Page

 

Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210                                         11

 

Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 1067                                                          12

 

Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 (1828)                            13, 14

 

(In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, 559. [300 P. 132])                                      11

 

Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappell, 327 SW2d 15 at 27                    11, 12

 

Libhart v. Copeland 949 SW2d 783, 794                                                11, 12

 

Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416                                                            11

 

Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633, 642                                         14

 

Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257, 260                                                  11

 

Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.,

(1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1239                                                              14

 

Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)                                           14 - 15

 

United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982)                                       10, 17

 

United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70                                  11

 

Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 (1876)                                              12, 13

 

 

 

 

STATUTES AND RULES                                                                   Page

 

Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1916                                                             8

 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(4)                                           10

 

9th Cir. Rule 3-6                                                                                        10

 

OTHER

 

Appendix A                                                                                                 9

 

Appendix B                                                                                                10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORATI

 

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the order below.

 

OPINION BELOW

 

 

[x]     For cases from federal courts:

 

          The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at      Appendix B to the petition and is

          [  ]     reported at _____________________________________; or

          [  ]     has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or

          [  ]     is unpublished.

          [x]     not indicated as to be published or unpublished.

 

JURISDICTION

 

[X]     For cases from federal courts:

 

          The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my      case was December 8, 2011.

 

          [x]     No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

 

          The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(1)

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

 

Facts, Authorities, and Case Precedence

 

This Certiorari arises out of a federal suit involving a 11/24/09 fraudulent Minute Order created by someone yet unknown that alleges that Petitioner was present and arraigned on criminal charges, a fact which is specifically contradicted by the sworn declaration under oath of the court reporter named within that Minute Order, to wit, VERONIKA COHEN. It follows that she also was made a victim of this fraudulently created Minute Order. An alleged “conviction” of the non-existent charges followed with an affirmation on appeal, despite a CCP Sec. 1916 impeachment of the record, which provides, “Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.”

Petitioner sought to bring up this fraud issue within the State Court of Appeals, but was barred by the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court from doing so. Therefore, in lieu thereof, Petitioner brought a state court civil action in which action defendants defaulted. Instead of dealing with the default, defendants removed the state action to federal court, ignoring the state court default.

In federal court Petitioner was given leave to amend the complaint to convert it into a federal cause of action. Thereupon, four federal judges, one after another, successively recused themselves from the case. It was then passed on to the fifth federal judge, Judge Otis D. Wright, who, without an appearance of any of the parties before him, summarily dismissed the federal fraud action 10/17/2011, stating that Petitioner could refile his federal action when he got the state court conviction overturned. However, since the federal complaint alleges there were no criminal charges upon which a conviction could exist, a fact supported by the declaration of the court reporter VERONIKA COHEN, Petitioner appealed that decision on 10/20/2012.

Upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal, Petitioner was immediately notified, “A review of the record demonstrates that this appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition…” Appendix A, dated 10/25/2011. Petition had never heard of a case in which the appeal was pre-planned to be disposed of instantly without any record, questions on appeal, or an Opening Brief. Such pre-planned summary Affirmation of dismissal of this fraud case materialized in Appendix B, 12/8/2011. This instant Petition for Certiorari ensued.

 

The Order of 10/25/2011, (Appendix A), states it is based upon “A review of the record,” and cites to 9th Cir. Rule 3-6. But there is no record whatsoever, only a Notice of Appeal. This summary affirmation at the Notice of Appeal stage proves that the dismissal of this case alleging fraud was pre-planned.

An appeal cannot be disposed of by law merely because one files a Notice of Appeal. FRAP 3(c)(4) states, “An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.”

The Order of 12/8/2011 (Appendix B), cites to United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (1982), which twice states that its determination is based upon the filing of an Opening Brief. But here, as stated, there is no “Opening Brief” on which to make a determination, only a summary blockage of the statutory right of appeal.

 

Here are just some cases in which this Court, and others, have ruled on with respect to the types of fraud which are herein involved:

“…the filing of a complaint was mandatory, and essential to the jurisdiction of the court. ‘Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is the primary question for determination by a court to any case, for jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine. [Citing cases.] If a judgment is rendered by a court which did not have jurisdiction to hear a cause, such judgment is void ab initio. [Citing cases.] Even though a void judgment is affirmed on appeal, it is not thereby rendered valid.’ (In re Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, 559. [300 P. 132])” Ralph v. Police Court, 84 C.A.2d 257, 260.

 “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.” Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416.

          “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters.”

Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210.

          “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70.

          “No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment or a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. …fraud vitiates all transactions, and if taken for a fraudulent purpose to carry out a fraudulent scheme, such action is void and of no force or effect whatever, equality will compel fair dealing, disregarding all forms and subterfuges, and looking only to the substance of things.” Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappell, 327 SW2d 15 at 27 citing Libhart v. Copeland 949 SW2d 783, 794.

“Extrinsic fraud usually arises when a party is denied a fair adversary hearing because he has been ‘deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense.’ ’’   Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 1067.

“The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.       “That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights is admitted. Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization, over the subject matter. But notice is only for the purpose of affording the party an opportunity of being heard upon the claim or the charges made; it is a summons to him to appear and speak, if he has any thing to say, why the judgment sought should not be rendered. A denial to a party of the benefit of a notice would be in effect to deny that he is entitled to notice at all, and the sham and deceptive proceeding had better be omitted altogether. …. It is difficult to speak of a decree thus rendered with moderation; it was in fact a mere arbitrary edict, clothed in the form of a judicial sentence.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 (1876).

“If the court of a state had jurisdiction of a matter, its decision would be conclusive, but this Court cannot yield assent to the proposition that the jurisdiction of a state court cannot be questioned where its proceeding were brought collaterally before the circuit court of the United States.

“Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.

“The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings.” Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 (1828).

“The affirmance of a void judgment upon appeal imparts no validity to the judgment, but is in itself void by reason of the nullity of the judgment appealed from.” Pioneer Land Co. v. Maddux, 109 Cal. 633, 642.

“The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to void judgments. ‘Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud.” Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co., (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1239.

“… [W]e are of opinion that we should recognize the condition created by the judgment of the state court unless, from an intrinsic consideration of the state record, one or all of the following conditions should appear: 1, that the state procedure, from want of notice or opportunity to be heard, was wanting in due process, 2, that there was such an infirmity of proof as to facts found to have established the want of fair private and professional character as to give rise to a clear conviction on our part that we could not, consistently with our duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject, or 3, that some other grave reason existed which should convince us that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do.”  Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This appeal from the Ninth Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in affirming an Order of dismissal immediately following the filing of a Notice of Appeal, and prior to a record, questions on appeal, and an Opening Brief so as to call for the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The Order of Affirmation of dismissal, (Appendix B), not only runs afoul of United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982), but also so far departs from the normal appellate procedure that its Order calls for the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power inasmuch as should such behavior be given universal acceptance, there could exist no more appeals to the Ninth Circuit, as all Orders and Judgments would be Affirmed without record or briefing the instant the Notice of Appeal was filed.

This Court would be just in ordering the Ninth Circuit to permit a Record on Appeal, and based thereupon, an Opening Brief, and for this Appeal to proceed as required under the FRAP.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

 

__________________________________         

Dated:   February 24, 2012






1 of 1 File(s)


#18780 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:35 pm
Subject: The Initiative Process, Why So High?
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


The Initiative Process, Why So High?


Rashid, you have asked me why the the price for getting a Constitutional Initiative on the ballot in California is so high. It used to be about $1.2 million, but since the Legislature pretty much captured the entire Initiative market using our own tax dollars, we find ourselves competing with our own tax dollars.

Suppose the People among ourselves had the entire Oaks Market competitively locked up. But then the government entered into the Oats Market by proposing and collecting an Oat Farmer's Tax. With that Oats Farmer's Tax, they captured 2/3rds of the Oat Market Industry. What would be the effect? All Oat Farmers would have to raise the prices on their Oats to over twice what it used to be.

I have pointed out that for government to use the People's  exclusive constitutionally protected Initiative Process, is not only unfair, but very unconstitutional. Art. II, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution, which is the Initiative Provision, states, "All political power is inherent in the people. ...they have the right to alter or reform [government] when the public good may require." 

So, if ALL political power is inherent in the People, how much is inherent in government? The Initiative Process is exclusively preserved for the People to alter or reform their government, not for government to reform the People. Horses are for horseback riders, not peopleback riders for horses to ride.

Have you ever noticed that in excess of 2/3rds of all Initiatives placed on the ballot are placed there by our government, using our tax dollars, seeking to reform us? Where do they get this power? Certainly not from the Initiative Process.

If 2/3rds of the Initiatives are placed on the ballot by our own tax dollars, we, the other 1/3rd remaining, are competing with ourselves in the other 2/3rds market, running the price tag to over twice what passing an Initiative would otherwise cost the People.

If you think about it, all powers in the hands of the People, have been taken over by government. The Constitution recognizes our right to keep and bear arms. Government says, "Yes, but we will dictate to you how many, when, and where you can exercise that right. And by the way, you must surrender all the information we ask, so we may keep track of how you exercise that right."

Grand Juries are the Power of the People against an arbitrary government. But who manages the Grand Jury? Sorry to say, but the People have surrendered the power of the Grand Jury to the government. The judges select the Grand Jurors. The Prosecution advises the Grand Jury, and the legislators have mandated that Grand Jurors are precluded from investigating judges. Instead, the powers of the People in the Grand Jury, has been transferred to judicial commissions under the influence and authority of judges.

We recognized our own power in creating the Initiative Process within our Constitution so we can alter and reform our government for our benefit. But, then we have allowed the government to sweet talk us out of that exclusive power to allow them to take over our Initiative Process, and drive the prices up so that we, the People, can no longer afford the Initiative Process to initiative change. In other words, we, the People, willingly are financing a government of the government, by the government, and for the government, and if we, the People, do not approve, we, the People, must have the government's permission, to alter that.

We have allowed the horses to convince us that we must carry them on our backs to wherever they want us to go. The People are their own worst enemy, as Pogo once stated, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Now, as to your question, where can you find the professional Initiative companies? I suggest you do a search engine on the Internet for California Initiative Signature Gatherers.

Ron Branson


P.S. - Monkeys are not a smart as men, as evidenced by the fact that People have learned how to blow their brains out. Monkeys are not so smart, as they have not yet attained unto this intelligence as yet.



rashidemail wrote:

Hi Ron

 

 

Thanks for responding

 

 

How do I get in touch with the organizations, and why is the price so high. I thought about 1 million would needed to be raise.

 

 

Rashid

 

From: Ron Branson [mailto:VictoryUSA@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:04 PM
To: rashidemail@...
Subject: Re: initiative



The last I checked, I was given a price of 2.1 million dollars for the complete service to get an State Constitutional Amendment on the California ballot. There are approximately four competitive organization here in CA. willing to accept a contract agreement with you.

Ron Branson

www.jail4judges.org





#18781 From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:48 am
Subject: South Dakota - "State Prison Population Hits Record High"
jail4judges_...
Send Email Send Email
 


Gary Zerman, I would like to comment on the below news article, "State Prison Population Hits Record High"

It should be noted that the prison population in the U.S. is five times higher per capita than all the rest of the world. This statistic is gleaned from statements that the U.S. has only 5% of the worlds population, but has 25% of the worlds population behind prison bars.

Further, it should be noted that of all fifty states in the U.S., it is the State of South Dakota that has the highest population per capita in prison of all states. Hence, the prison capital of the World is South Dakota.

Further, I call to attention that when the State of South Dakota took on its fight against the passage of J.A.I.L., it chose as its focus the threat to South Dakota's prison population, saying that what J.A.I.L. was seeking was to release all the felons behind bars in South Dakota to go after the jurors who voted to convict them, and place them behind those bars.

We also discovered that one of the State Senators had the entire vendor business sown up within all the prisons in South Dakota. Every time a prisoner purchased from the vending machines, he made money, which endowed him with his fortunes..

Ron Branson




News 1 new result for court judge "South Dakota"
 
State prison population hits record high
Rapid City Journal
PIERRE — South Dakota's prison population hit record highs in recent months, state officials said Thursday as they described stepped-up efforts to reduce the number of people sentenced to prison and cut the number of parolees who end up back behind ...
See all stories on this topic »




Messages 18752 - 18781 of 19423   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help