tips_and_tricks : Messages : 3861-3890 of 19466

#3862 From: Advancepum@...
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 12:03 am
Subject: Re: TRAFFIC LAWS IN CALIFORNIA Advancepum@...
Send Email

If the judge is entering a plee for you he must be your attorney.
If I recall right the california law leaves a big loop hole but I don't remember what it is.
Paul

Hi Everybody,
Just joined this group.

I need some advise, if anybody has the knowledge.

I got a speeding ticket in California. I was not speeding! The
officer is lying! I recorded our "conversation" when he stopped me.
However, the Commissioner ruled against me.
In arraignment I DID NOT ENTER A PLEA - I ASKED TO SEE A SIGNED
VERIFIED COMPLAINT - I ASKED IF IT WERE COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY LAW
THAT THEY PROSECUTE ME UNDER - and was threatened to be thrown in
jail for even asking! The Commissioner entered a plea for me -
since I refused to enter a plea until I knew the jurisdiction. I am
appearing Pro Per., so I am the only one to enter a plea.

In trial, I was told it's California law - not Federal law that I am
prosecuted under and it's neither Common Law nor Admiralty Law.

Does anybody know if they can ignore the Constitution For The United
States and ignore the Common Law? I don't think they are allowed to
enter a plea for me either, as I explained above.

What annoys me to no end is that I have the officer on tape, stating
something. In court he states something else but the Commissioner
totaly ignored the facts...

Any Ideas?

Best Regards
ben_Gera

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#3863 From: Ringo <grabthering@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 5:06 am
Subject: Re: Protecting Earnings from Creditors grabthering
Send Email

Hello Keith,
Most states have a maximum % your wages can be
garnished.  Have a true friend get a court judgement
against you and have the friend obtain a court ordered
garnishment for the maximum amount.  I've heard this
works.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (8)

#3864 From: Advancepum@...
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 12:25 am
Subject: Fwd: TRAFFIC LAWS IN CALIFORNIA Advancepum@...
Send Email

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
See the underlined part of Article III, section II, close II.
If it is the state of California/People of the state of California, V you then the Supreme Court has origional jurisdiction. and this judge has no jurisdiction. In practical practice though you will have a hard time with this argument, although I have used it and made it work and it is legal.
Paul

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3.

I need some advise, if anybody has the knowledge.

I got a speeding ticket in California. I was not speeding! The
officer is lying! I recorded our "conversation" when he stopped me.
However, the Commissioner ruled against me.
In arraignment I DID NOT ENTER A PLEA - I ASKED TO SEE A SIGNED

If the judge is entering a plee for you he must be your attorney.
If I recall right the california law leaves a big loop hole but I don't remember what it is.
Paul

Hi Everybody,
Just joined this group.

I need some advise, if anybody has the knowledge.

I got a speeding ticket in California. I was not speeding! The
officer is lying! I recorded our "conversation" when he stopped me.
However, the Commissioner ruled against me.
In arraignment I DID NOT ENTER A PLEA - I ASKED TO SEE A SIGNED
VERIFIED COMPLAINT - I ASKED IF IT WERE COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY LAW
THAT THEY PROSECUTE ME UNDER - and was threatened to be thrown in
jail for even asking! The Commissioner entered a plea for me -
since I refused to enter a plea until I knew the jurisdiction. I am
appearing Pro Per., so I am the only one to enter a plea.

In trial, I was told it's California law - not Federal law that I am
prosecuted under and it's neither Common Law nor Admiralty Law.

Does anybody know if they can ignore the Constitution For The United
States and ignore the Common Law? I don't think they are allowed to
enter a plea for me either, as I explained above.

What annoys me to no end is that I have the officer on tape, stating
something. In court he states something else but the Commissioner
totaly ignored the facts...

Any Ideas?

Best Regards
ben_Gera

http://www.nkmr.org/english/english_notice_board_massive_lawsuit_filed.htm

#3865 From: "dave.mortimer" <dave.mortimer@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 11:05 am
Subject: Look whats being done in Canada dave.mortimer@...
Send Email

#3866 From: "Dessie Andrews" <dessieandrews@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 12:35 pm
Subject: RE: TRAFFIC LAWS IN CALIFORNIA dessie234
Send Email

Go to www.jusbelli.com, Ralph Winterrowd's site.  Use his Assistance of
Counsel argument.  There is no way around it.
.

I got a speeding ticket in California. I was not speeding! The
officer is lying! I recorded our "conversation" when he stopped me.
However, the Commissioner ruled against me.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#3867 From: Trooper753@...
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 9:48 am
Subject: Re: Contract Law and landlord tenant lease dispute trooper753
Send Email

cs- you could start an abeatement process.....understand that under contract law- both parties expect something from the other. jsut because they are a big corp., doesnt mean they dont have to abide by rules. keep articulate records and file a lawsuit. i would ask for the rent back due to your abating it. i would also ask the company for their risk management office number and or address. fiel a claim! dont let them make you think that if you dont have renters insurance you cannot recoup what you have lost or is dmaaged.

by the way- read up on mold. it causes sickness, allergies, and if there is enough of it in the air- strep throat-like symptoms, other physical ailments which mold can be attirbuted to- are skin rashes, bronchitis symptoms.....the lsit goes on and on. i would get checked out by a doctor and if that can be claimed- i would do it.

char

#3868 From: "linda carnahan" <shadow02@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: custody situation linda8532
Send Email

Dear Mike

What is it? First you say your X didn't compy and get the evaluation, then further down you say the evaluator said you have good parenting skills, but your X has some parenting skills? How would he know this if she hasn't completed the evaluation? Also, I think that you should read the book by R. Lundy Bancrofft, "the batterer as a parent." You sound just like my X, constantly having me in court and worried about how to IMPRESS THE JUDGE. If your concern is about your child, then why worry about impressing the judge? If you are SINCERE, it will show in everything you do. Court and custody evaluations are baloney, they do not know you as a person, only by what you put on a piece of paper, and believe me you can LIE on that evaluation to make yourself look good. One thing of interest is, in all of these custody cases, the men always seem intent on making the X look bad in front of the judge. Remember, this is your child's mother that you are doing this to. The more you mar her in court, the more it will come back to bite you in the end when your child is grown up. Think about what you posted, it sounds pretty vindictive to me.

----- Original Message -----

From: mikes

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:31 PM

Subject: [tips_and_tricks] custody situation

I have been dealing with a very vendictive x-girlfriend in a custody case. I was granted a full evaluation request as things get near and looking very good for me I would like to know the best way to present myself infront of the judge. On al the other times I had gone to court it was acknowledged that I had completely complied with every requirement and my x was told by the judge that she was not pleased withher performance thus far. Now we go back to court Nov 7 and my x again for the third time has not completed her order to complete an evaluation. I would like to know what to expect and how the prepare or act as we are in court. I had to consult another attorney due to mine is on medical leave and the new sitting in attorney is not up to speed with my case. There is a whole lot to this but anything would be greatly appreciated.

PS so far the evaluator said I have good parenting skills and said my x has parenting skills but they need to be improved.

Sincerely

Mike Smith

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#3869 From: sherri ness <sheri0228@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 3:52 pm
Subject: Contract Law and landlord tenant lease dispute sheri0228@...
Send Email

Good Morning Celestial!

I read your statement and find that the owner has neglected his responsibility
to keep this building in good condition. Not only that, I feel they have known
about this for quite sometime. I have been in property management for over 25
yrs. and if I have an employer who is not honest...I resign. Also, there is a
City Employee who is not doing his or her job. You have many issues here.
Health, failure to repair water damages, the city employee, stress and a few
more. I would seek legal advise. Especially with the city not making the owner
comply with these violations.Most manangement companies advise the renter to get
renter's insurance because they don't cover it. You may have a good case because
they knew about this and did not make the necessary reapirs. When you are in
court, you never know what the judge will say. Law is law, but the outcome
sometimes will make your hair curl. You can find out who the owner is by the tax
accessor's office. If you involve the media...you need to
  be careful. I would call contact legal advise first. If you need more
info...let me know. Every state is different, but basically the same. I wish you
the best.  Sherri
celestial_shamanka <celestial_shamanka@...> wrote:
Hello ladies and gentlemen -

I have a very curious legal situation to present. I have a yearly
lease with my landlord in a very large apartment complex in Palm
Beach County Florida. Also, I have been renting this apartment for 4
years --

#3870 From: "JAH" <jahpublications@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 4:16 pm
Subject: Custody of children jahpublications@...
Send Email

Dear list-members,

I hope you are all well, in good spirit and having a good weekend.

Those of you who are having child custody and domestic disputes over the
house should study the following:-
http://jahtruth.co.uk/cuofch.htm

Under God's Law the dad has automatic custody of his children and possession
of his house and the estranged wife has to leave his home alone.

That prevents most wives from causing trouble and seeking a divorce, which
she also cannot do under God's Law.

These are very good reasons for enforcing The Plan:-
http://jahtruth.co.uk/plan.htm

If you have lost your children and your house, enforcing The Plan and
reinstating God's Law will get them back for you.

Hope you have a good weekend studying The Plan,

JAH.
--

             http://jahtruth.co.uk/

--

#3871 From: "Llana Dyess" <llanago@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: custody situation llanago
Send Email

>>>>>Think about what you posted, it sounds pretty vindictive to me.<<<<<<

Doesn't sound vindictive to me at all. But, then, that could be because I was married to a man whose X was only interested in how much money she could squeeze out of him for herself. The children's needs were neglected - she would send them to us with a suitcase full of DIRTY clothes (she had a brand new washer/dryer that he bought for her WILLINGLY AFTER they divorced), no toothbrush (toothbrushes are SOOOO expensive), hungry (everytime we picked up these kids up,they were hungry, unless we picked them up at the grandparents) and other assorted things. She just couldn't afford to do all the things that needed to be done for the children without more money. Funny, she always had plenty of money to spend the Saturdays when we had the kids, shopping with her girlfriends and buying herself several new outfits that she couldn't resist showing off to us. We helped her move and found clothes in her closet, with $200 and $300 price tags, that had never even taken out of the plastic bags they came in!

And I am not even going to get into the crap she told the kids about their father and me. He never said an unkind word about her, or to her, in front of the children, but she did everything she could to make the kids hate their father. Fortunately, the kids were smart enough to know who was slinging the mud.

Not all men are guilty of the things their x's accuse them of. In fact, in my experience in my circle of friends, and working for attorneys and a judge, I have seen that women are much more vindicative and willing to lie about whatever in order to get what they want.

I am not saying that you are guilty of this at all. Just relating my own experience. It is well known that the courts today show favoritism toward the women and many, many times put the screws to the men involved. And, for you to paint Mike with the same brush as your x, is just a bit over the line IMHO.

llana

-------Original Message-------

From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Date: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:38:26 AM

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] custody situation

Dear Mike

____________________________________________________

IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

#3872 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 5:10 pm
Subject: Cordova v. Baca (9th Cir. 2003) in re: assistance of Counsel supremelawfirm
Send Email

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/cordova/cordova.htm

Recent Ninth Circuit decision.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

#3873 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 7:16 pm
Subject: deduction for "wages" earned: see Form 2555 if you still filing supremelawfirm
Send Email

Hi Dan,

Read these first:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
(certified copy is available for $30.00 prepaid)
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

And please tell others about these 2 important
documents.

If you want to continue filing, even though there
is no liability statute, and even though you may
want to continue being treated AS IF you are a
federal citizen, then check out Form 2555:
foreign earned income.

The OMB control number on this form is the
one that is displayed on the CFR regs
for section 1 of the IRC, 26 CFR 1.1-1,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/vroman/visaides.htm

The 50 States are legally "foreign" with respect
to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.

A breezy summary of "foreign" and "domestic"
is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/cogent.htm

The full story is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

Please be aware that there ARE liability statutes
for withholding agents, as explained in 31Q&A above.

Withholding agents are made specifically liable
for all taxes they have withheld, but not yet paid
intoto the Treasury of the United States:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/injunction.htm


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm

copy:  The Internet

--- Dan [snip] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Paul, I found your site while researching IRS information on code 1341
> dealing with "Claim or Right".  Have you dealt with the Idea of being able to
> claim a deduction for wages earned?  I have done a lot of research and now
> wonder what the Irs would do if I claimed this deduction.  Publication 525
> actually shows how to do this but is vague in how much you can deduct.  I
> found the definition of "Claim of Right' in the Blacks Law
> Dictionary and then got the 1939 code book that 1341 is in. It sure looks
> like I can take a deduction from gross income with this code.  I am a power
> plant operator and would appreciate an opinion on this.  It looks to me you
> are well aquainted with IRS regulations!  Thank you Dan         P.S.
> I found your website very interesting!
>
> --

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#3874 From: Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: TRAFFIC LAWS IN CALIFORNIA frogfrmr@...
Send Email

On Saturday, November 1, 2003, at 04:35  AM, Dessie Andrews wrote:

>
> Go to www.jusbelli.com, Ralph Winterrowd's site.  Use his Assistance of
> Counsel argument.  There is no way around it.
> .
>
> I got a speeding ticket in California. I was not speeding! The
> officer is lying! I recorded our "conversation" when he stopped me.
> However, the Commissioner ruled against me.
>
>

Hi!  I'm in California, and I think that before one finds themselves in
a situation that requires assistance of counsel, a whole lot of other
things need to have happened, and if they don't, pretending they did in
order to use the assistance of counsel argument may be creating a false
record with too many assumptions and presumptions created to ever
overcome even with the finest counsel.  A jury will be fooled by one's
prior acquiescences and implicit stipulations, don't you think?

In other words, it's like having the world's most excellent life jacket,
so you have your own cruise interrupted by a terrorist submarine
torpedoing you miles from shore just so you can enjoy the fine quality
and craftsmanship of your new lifejacket.  Me, no matter how good my
lifejacket may be, I really don't ever want to wear it in an emergency
situation like a ship sinking.  I will not scuttle my ship just to try
it out.

Why do so many people go along with lies and false assumptions hoping
that when the avalanche of events reaches the stage where their
"ace-in-the-hole" defense can first come into play, the sheer momentum
of the collected debris will not roll right over them and do them in?  I
cannot understand it, except that people are not taking full
responsibility for themselves and are hoping that someone else will.

Rather than waiting for a chance to use a defense that will most likely
require an appeal to a higher court, and maybe more, I prefer to make
sure that only qualified individuals may interfere in my life in an
official capacity.
Because of serious physical injuries I have already suffered at the
hands of government paycheck anticipators, I no longer have time to
spare for dealing with liars and greedy or power-hungry incompetents.  I
have learned to cut down on wasted time by carefully trying to determine
that all who try to impress me with their special powers do indeed
possess all the required qualifications necessary to validly make such
claims of authority.  Since undertaking this endeavor, I have failed to
meet but ONE qualified individual who had completed all actions
necessary to confer the powers he originally claimed (and I deterred him
with my knowledge of his commission of a felony).  Upon my statement of
the facts of their failure to qualify (eliminating the NEED to
DISqualify) they all fell silent, as is their right under Miranda v.
Arizona.

Can anyone explain a good reason for me to increase the amount of time I
permit these people to take from my remaining days and minutes on
Earth?   I cannot think of one.  However, should I ever get so far, when
all prior requirements for due process have been met, and the moment
arrives when assistance of counsel of my choice
becomes an issue, I will most certainly claim all my rights as
recommended by Ralph, who I most highly commend for his fine work and
research.  However, I will not release rats into my house just because
my new rat trap is a really excellent piece of work and guaranteed to
catch them.   First, wild rats will have to get past a whole line of
prior defenses. Mice don't qualify.

I think the first thing anyone should do in contemplating their case is
to make a list of all the rights they've already waived for whatever
reason (and who they made them for), and try to recover from the
waivers, and stop making new waivers.  In California, it is my
experience that one cannot be convicted without their own cooperation
and many many waivers of rights along the way (in the case at hand, one
waiver was in accepting a poser playing the role of commissioner instead
of demanding a qualified judge).  I've never seen the conviction of
anyone not willing to make numerous and repeated waivers of rights along
the way.  I can point out waivers in almost all cases I see.  I've never
seen a valid arraignment, and I'm the only person I ever saw demand
one.  This is not to say many others are not demanding them - I don't go
to court much anymore, once I discovered they were not properly set.  I
don't have time to waste.   The point is, there could be many hundreds
or zero people not making waivers in their cases, you'd never hear about
them.  The important thing is for YOU to not make waivers in YOUR case.
Can you recognize a waiver if you encounter one about to occur?

But if anyone can educate me as to why I might want to permit more of my
time to be wasted by people making false claims, I'm open to hearing
about it.  For what it's worth, I think Ralph's argument hits the spot,
for those willing to travel to the spot to use it in.  I see a lot of
space between that spot and the moment that first face gets in my face
making the claim of special status.  Sometimes to me, it seems that most
people don't see any space there at all.  Any comments?  Any relevent
testimonies?

Getting crotchety in my old age,

FF

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#3875 From: "Lionel" <help@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 9:31 pm
Subject: New Member here ozydads
Send Email

Greetings Barry et al,

Thank you for inviting me to join your [tips and tricks] group.

I hope I can contribute to the benefit of this group and at the same
time, learn some helpful tips and handy tricks to pass on to the
members of my OzyDads Online Network as well as to our special
purpose support forum [SRLs] at www.SelfRep.net

Wearing my OzyDads hat I help disenfranchised dads to win custody
(or a better visitation regime) but wearing my SPCA hat (as WA State
Director) I am lobbying hard for legislative reform towards the
rebuttable presumption of Equal Shared Joint Custody.

We seem to be on target with that one. See
www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/hearings.htm

As well as that, the South Australian government is now conducting a
parliamentary inquiry into the Status of Fatherhood.  Not yet
available online but for more info contact Andrew Evans  phone +61 8
8237 9122 or e-mail his assistant Kaleen.Watt@...

Also I have created a number of other splinter groups for specific
purposes like www.StopPSA.info,  www.FatherStatus.org ,
www.CSAclients.net , www.JointParenting.net , www.MaleVictim.net  ,
www.FamilyRules.net , www.disenfranchised.net  and anyone interested
to participate in discussion and share information in these specific
areas are invited to join.

Feel free to contact me on list or privately if there is anything I
can do to help.

Best wishes to all,

Lionel Richards  help@...
OzyDads Network   www.OzyDads.net

Affiliate member of:-
Council for the Status of Fathers  www.FatherStatus.org
Shared Parenting Council of Australia   www.spca.org.au

#3876 From: Trooper753@...
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Custody of children trooper753
Send Email

jah i know what your saying and i almost agree....my thinking is that a child needs a certain type of nurturing that a mother can usually give better than the father. i dont hink it is Gods plan for folks to divorce at all. there are two reasons for divorce in the bible i believe. when we make the decision to get married- we are also to seek the approval of our parents- no matter what the age. when people walk into a biblical marraige and do what please god first he will bless the marraige. what i am trying to say is- we as a society often tell God what we are gonna do- ask him to bless yada yada.....then we are left scratching our heads and our back sides trying to figure out what went wrong.

if peopel would do what they are told according to the bible before walking into a marriage, we would not have heartaches and hurt families, children etc.

just my 2 cents.....

char

#3877 From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 11:41 pm
Subject: Minimal Rules for Tips & Tricks legalbear7
Send Email

Hi:  There have been some recent newcomers to the list.  I thought it
appropriate to post these minimal rules to make my job as moderator a little
easier; and, so your post will make it to the list the first time.  Here
they are:

1)  I'll kick you out of the group for talking down to or belittling another
member. Flames (angry posts with or without profanity) will also get you
kicked out.

2) Questions directed at any single list member must be sent directly to
that list member off-list. Why should 8-900 other list members have to sort
through and delete messages that are not intended for them? I have placed
instructions on how to find any list members email address in the files
section of this group.

3) You must delete the major portion of prior posts contained in the message
you are responding to. Generally, it is a good idea to put your response at
the top of the message. That way everyone can find it easy. I have described
the process to accomplish this in the files area for this group.

4) Your post must be in some way related to going to court! I'm very liberal
with this rule but I do have limits. I try not to be arbitrary but,
sometimes I've had it pointed out to me that I am not that successful. All I
can say is that I'm doing the best I can. There are other lists to post too
that don't have the court requirement.

Everybody try please and thanks for subscribing, Bear

For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO
80634-7849; 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. fax 978-246-0798
www.legal-research-video.com <http://www.legal-research-video.com/>
www.legalbears.com
www.freedivorceforms.net
www.irs-armory.com
www.legalbearswebmarketing.com
www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

#3878 From: "Reena Sommer" <drsommer@...>
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2003 11:51 pm
Subject: Re: custody situation divorce_cons...
Send Email

I thought I would jump in and take a stab at this issue. As a new
list member, I am not yet familiar with them dynamics of this
group and I sincerely hope I will not offend anyone by my comments.
By way of a brief introduction, my interest and involvement with
the issue of divorce began when I personally went through the process
and got a taste first hand of what a custody battle is like.

Academically, I have a background in psychology & family studies
(ph.d.) and my academic interests have been in the area of high
conflict relationships and families. It wasn't much of a leap to
venture over to divorce.Having said all this, I would like to add
the following comments to this discussion on custody evaluations,
noncompliance and presentation in court.

I am not speaking as an attorney, but as a divorce consultant
and "on and Off again" custody evaluator. I see the latter as being
a "recovering" custody evaluator because I am seeing less value in
doing them as time goes on (and more pain, hardship and financial
expense caused as a result of them).

It is not uncommon for one parent to be noncompliant in a custody
evaluation. The noncompliance serves more than one master. If it
is played right, it can stall time and if the noncomplying parent has
physical custody, it is an excellent way to establish status quo.
Secondly, I have yet to see any severe penalty imposed on the
noncompliant parent by a judge at the pretrial level. Most often
judges may show their dismay, chastise the offending parent and
order them to comply. And then more time is wasted in waiting for
that noncomplying parent to show that he/she continues to be
noncompliant.

My gut feeling is that when you go to court next week, I would
develop a "one track" argument to present to the judge. As I do
not know you personally, I can't tell you what that would be exactly.
But I would be inclined to develop an argument that ties in the
parent's noncompliance with a long history of related conduct that
makes raises questions about that parent's ability to make the
children's needs a priority. You argument must be factual and backed
by evidence not just your word.

I am running a free tele-seminar on the issue of custody
evaluations tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is all filled up as of this
morning. However, I am audiotaping it and it will be available as a
downloadable audiofile. If anyone is interested, please email me
offline.

Reena Sommer
http://www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca


____________________________________


  I was granted a full evaluation request as things get near and
looking very good for me I would like to know the best way to present
myself infront of the judge. > Mike Smith

#3879 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 1:35 am
Subject: search for "vested" in Waltz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) supremelawfirm
Send Email

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/664.html

WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
397 U.S. 664 (1970)


[begin excerpt]

"It is obviously correct that no one acquires
a vested or protected right in violation of the
Constitution by long use, even when that span of time
covers our entire national existence and indeed
predates it."

[end excerpt]


.... as cited in my OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm

If you need help searching with your browser,
please contact your browser vendor, and/or
try Help in the main menu bar.

In MSIE, click on Edit | Find (on This Page).


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General


--- gretanussbaum <patk1@...> wrote:
> I want to search for "vested" as you suggested, however, I have no idea how
> to do that.  You imply there is a way to search your OPENING BRIEF  for a
> word.
> You wrote below:
> Also, courts have already held, numerous times, that NO ONE acquires
> any vested or protected rights in violation of the Constitution.
>
> There are two such cases cited in my OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth
> Circuit:  one of those is a Ninth Circuit case, and the other
> is a Supreme Court case:
>
> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm
> (search for "vested")
>
> NO ONE!!
> Pat
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

#3880 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 1:39 am
Subject: U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338, (9th Cir. 1984) supremelawfirm
Send Email

And the Ninth Circuit has ruled as follows:

[begin excerpt]

"A practice condemned by the Constitution
cannot be saved by historical acceptance
and present convenience."

U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338, (9th Cir. 1984)

[end excerpt]


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General


--- Paul Andrew Mitchell <paulandrewmitchell@...> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:35:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <paulandrewmitchell@...>
> Subject: search for "vested" in Waltz v. Tax Commission of City of New York,
> 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
> To: supremelawfirm@...
>
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/664.html
>
> WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
> 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
>
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> "It is obviously correct that no one acquires
> a vested or protected right in violation of the
> Constitution by long use, even when that span of time
> covers our entire national existence and indeed
> predates it."
>
> [end excerpt]
>
>
> .... as cited in my OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit:
> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm
>
> If you need help searching with your browser,
> please contact your browser vendor, and/or
> try Help in the main menu bar.
>
> In MSIE, click on Edit | Find (on This Page).
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
> /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
> Private Attorney General
>
>
> --- gretanussbaum <patk1@...> wrote:

[snip]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

#3881 From: balderdash88@...
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 3:16 am
Subject: Re: deduction for "wages" earned: see Form 2555 if you still filing balderdash88@...
Send Email

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#3882 From: "Frieda Nugen" <frieda.ebay@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 4:13 am
Subject: Re: Custody of children jln405
Send Email

I totally agree with char. I went to the website and read what was there and placed it next to the beliefs in my heart, my knowledge of His word, and my (and our children's) unfortunate reality. Also, in reading the description of 'JAH' by clicking on the link at the bottom, it is clear that he believes that God ordains all fathers are the rightful custodians of the children and all women are wrong if they take custody of the children. At first glance that is just wrong. Reading closer, we find that God defines how a man himself should be. The confusion lies in what to do when the man is no longer responsible in word and action, even if the marriage has previously been decent and happy.

I think if marriages were 'right' to begin with, divorces shouldn't be necessary. Just because we had a wonderful 17 years of marriage before (what I think) he went off the deep end mentally, doesn't mean that our marriage was ordained of God. I also endured 7 more years trying to do my part to salvage it, and no matter how hard I worked, I could only do my 50 per cent. I do not believe for one moment that I would have been behaving responsibly to have left the children with their father when he is obviously not well and refuses to get help.

Here is my assessment of what I found. I was still left with questions, but I think the main thing is that my Ex did not behave as a godly man, taking his responsibilities and loving his wife as God loves the church. JAH's website contains passages from the Koran and the Bible to justify the fathers taking custody of the children. Most of what I saw quoted from the Bible was comprised of Old Testament works which was washed clean with the New Covenant. In the time of the Old Testament, women and children were seen as 'property' and were 'owned' by the man that supported them, usually the father.

I believe God loves his children equally. I do feel that a loving godly husband will support his wife and lovingly help guide her life along with his so that the road for both is made smooth. She in turn, would be happy to be by his side (by his actions) and would love and nurture both him and their children. If she truly loves her husband, then they both would be facing the same direction, and she would respect his authority. Likewise, he might decide to defer to her suggestions or advice when she offers them as a means to support him. They both would work together to overcome friction, and divorce would be unheard of. If only life were that easy.

I am all for a Godly man being in charge of their household. When either parent begins to blaspheme God in word and deed, it would seem to cease being a Godly home.

I went directly to the part where he specified, and my responses are after the >>>.

From the Koran:

GOD'S COMMAND ABOUT THE MAN'S AUTOMATIC CUSTODY OF HIS CHILDREN and their weaning. Women do NOT have rights over children; they only bear children FOR THEIR HUSBAND.

>>>>In our case, this is why our children still bear his name. He has now made it known to those around him (but not me) that he desires to break that connection. He tells others that he has spoken about this with me, and he hasn't. I first learned of it from his sister.

Sura 2:231. When ye divorce women, and they fulfill the term of their abstinance from sexual relations ('Iddat), either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage if any one does that he wrongs his own soul.

>>>Do I take this to mean he can still keep the children and wife in danger, that his only punishment is to 'wrong his own soul' and continue abuse? What does this say about abuse?

Is this referring to all men, or godly men (a good man is not that hard to find)

Do not treat God's Signs as a jest, but solemnly rehearse God's favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book (Bible) and Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear God, and know that God is well acquainted with all things.

>>> Amen. He sees and knows all.

2:232. When ye divorce women, and they fulfill the term of their abstinence from sexual relations ('Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their (former) husbands, if they mutually agree on equitable terms. This instruction is for all amongst you, who believe God and in the Last Day. That is (the course making for) most virtue and purity amongst you and God knows, and ye know not.

>>>>Okay, now I can see this is for all those who believe in God. This then, means the father should believe in God.

2:233. The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term.

>>>What if he does not desire to complete the term? Do both the wife and child suffer from seperation?

But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms.

>>>And what if he refuses to pay? This happened to me, and he still owes that to me and our children. We are having a tough time now and may not have money to travel to him for Christmas. If I had that, we could go. He is still free to come pick them up. I just want him to fix himself whether I see any money or not. Our children hurt from not seeing him, and the fact that he doesn't call but every 2 months, and has never sent them a letter, birthday or Christmas card. No gifts.

No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear. No mother shall be treated unfairly on account of her child.

>>> It is my guess that my ex is only doing this to the children because of me. It is not fair to me, but it surely isn't fair to the children for his anger at me to be directed at them by withholding love, contact, cards, and gifts.

Nor father on account of his child, an heir shall be chargeable in the same way. If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no blame on them.

>>>This is what we originally agreed - to part as friends and do the best we could for the children while living separate lives.

If ye (men) decide on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided ye pay (the mother) what ye offered, on equitable terms. But fear God and know that God sees well what ye do.

>>> He has already told me he hates God for doing this to him and blames God for the death of our first child. He has not paid to me or the children what he promised, and I don't know if God is important to him now or not. I need God to be important to me and our children. Is it wrong for me to want God's presence when their father does not (at least at this time)?

A Message for YOU from God in The Koran

And why should YOU not fight in the Cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee One who will protect; and raise for us from Thee One who will help!"

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing (alcohol; tobacco; etc.) which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not."

We know best what they say; and thou art not one to overawe them by force. So admonish (fight and correct) with the Qur'an (Koran) and Bible such as fear My Warning!

O ye who believe (God)! If ye obey the Unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.

>>>> If someone had told me 3 years ago I would be here now, I would not have believed them; but I am here, and I have no choice but to think that this is where God wants me and my children. There must be something there in all that He did that I don't know for me to leave my home of 43 years and move somewhere where I know no one. In every step I have asked,"Is this what YOU want, Father?"

The Bible:-

Genesis - women's liberation PROHIBITED by God

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL RULE OVER THEE.
3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife (and obeyed her instead of Me), and hast eaten of the tree, of which I COMMANDED thee, saying, Thou shalt NOT eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

>>>> It was prohibited under the Old Testament. There is a New Covenant. The old curses are still in effect, but Jesus gives us strength and resolve to endure them.

Numbers - God says the father has authority over HIS children:-

30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the "I AM", or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
30:3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the "I AM", and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth;
30:4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
30:5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the "I AM" shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

In order to exercise his authority over his children as God commanded the father has to have custody and have them living in his house (Numbers 30:3); which is later confirmed by God in His Holy Koran; otherwise it makes a nonsense of God's Command and makes the fulfillment of His Command impossible.

>>>> What of women that have already moved out of their father's house? This again is from the Old Testament, and at a time when wives and children were property.

1 Corinthians - CONFIRMATION that WOMEN's LIBERATION is PROHIBITED

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

>>> This is interesting. How many men truly see their wives as the glory of themselves? How many forsake the companionship of their wife for a woman outside of marriage?

11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the communities: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law (of God - Gen. 3:16). (Be seen and not heard and children also).
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in the community.

>>>> So we should never have been given the right to vote?

Ephesians - confirmation that EQUALITY of sexes is PROHIBITED

5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the community: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the community is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the community, and gave himself for it;

>>>>Read that one again. It should be in boldface also, yet I see it is not. I'll change that for just this message:

5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the community, and gave himself for it;

5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of [Living] water by the Word,
5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious community, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

>>> Here is yet another worth repeating in boldface:

5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the community:

>>>> Maybe that is part of the problem. We are too concerned with he and her, and it should be ONE flesh.

Colossians - EQUALITY of sexes PROHIBITED

3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him.
3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

>>> (sigh) More needs to be in boldface here:

3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

3:20 Children, obey [your] parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
3:21 Fathers, provoke not

your children [to anger], lest they be discouraged.

Titus - EQUALITY of sexes PROHIBITED

1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
1:16 They claim that they know God; but in [their] works they deny [Him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
2:3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holy women, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their [husband's] children,
2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
2:7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine [showing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
2:8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

>>> All of that should be in boldface, as the young men should show themselves a pattern of good works: in doctrine [showing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, etc.

In short, why on this page is not anything highlighted that underscores the responsibility of the man and good husband?

1 Peter - EQUALITY of sexes PROHIBITED

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without the Word be won by the conversation of the wives;
3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4 But [let it be] the hidden Man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

>>> I would be a rich woman indeed if I had received pay for the time I spent trying to be an example. If a man will not go to church, the woman cannot make him. If he does not want her to worship, should she then be in subjection to him and forsake God? What about the children of this marriage?

1 Timothy - EQUALITY of sexes PROHIBITED

2:11 Let the woman learn in SILENCE with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
3:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
3:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats (become vegetarian), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the Truth.

>>>> This is also Old Testament. It also seems to be condeming vegetarians. There is a passage that states for those who are strong let them eat meat; but for

those who are weak, they may eat herbs. And we are then admonished not to judge them for their choice in sustenance.

Leviticus - busybodies condemned

19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down [as] a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I [am] the "I AM".

1 Timothy - busybodies condemned

5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
5:13 And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

1 Peter - busybodies condemned - and also explaining that evil will be spoken (by those in authority) about those who support God's Law and not men's laws.

4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are sharers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
4:17 For the time [is come] that Judgment must begin at the House of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?
4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the unGodly and the sinner appear?
4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the Will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

>>> I have no problem with anything but I find there are more men that fit the definition of busybody than women. I don't have the time to stick my nose in other's business. I am also the one for whom evil has been spoken, as I chose to keep my mouth shut. I praise God that he gave me the strength to do so.

Deuteronomy -

Man-made laws are PROHIBITED by God.

Therefore man-made laws giving custody of a man's children to his wife are ILLEGAL. As also are laws giving women equality with men, or a say in their, or public, affairs.

Blackstone; the authority on English law, whose teaching is still studied today; says that any legislation that contravenes the Law of God is not an enactment and cannot be enforced.

Deuteronomy
4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the Statutes and unto the Judgments, which I teach you, for to DO [them], that ye may LIVE, and go in and possess the land which the "I AM" God of your fathers giveth you.
4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

>>>> So if a marriage is really not ordained of God, then the couple has lived in sin and fornication and a divorce in God's eyes is not necessary. This is a part that I have never understood, why a marriage is not made as hard to enter into as a divorce is to 'get out'

of.

Matthew - Christ confirms that God's Law is Eternal

5:16 Let your Light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all (the prophecies) be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall EXCEED [the righteousness] of the lawyers and politicians (who were also priests), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

Deuteronomy - Keeping God's Law gives Life Eternal; any other (man-made) law gives death eternal

30:8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the "I AM", and do all His Commandments which I command thee this day.
30:9 And the "I AM" thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the "I AM" will again rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers:
30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the "I AM" thy God, to keep His Commandments and His Statutes which are written in this Book of The Law, [and] if thou turn unto the "I AM" thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
30:11 For this Commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.
30:12 It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
30:13 Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
30:14 But the Word [is] very near unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the "I AM" thy God, to walk in His Ways, and to keep His Commandments and His Statutes and His Judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the "I AM" thy God shall bless thee in the land where thou goest to possess it.
30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, where thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
30:20 That thou mayest love the "I AM" thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Him: for He [is] thy Life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the "I AM" sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
31:1 And Moses went and spoke these words unto all Israel (the Brit-ish).

>>>> I am thoroughly convinced that if I had not put God first, then I and possibly our children would now be dead. If God had wanted our marriage to continue, my husband would not have continued the abuse for 7 years. I find it hard to believe that God would have wanted us to stay together without any improvement of the relationship. I asked him to go for counseling, he refused, stating nothing was wrong when it was.

>>>> I have to agree with this. There are so many of God's laws broken by men and women in the name of upholding justice, that it is impossible for any of us to judge fairly. As God has not deemed it yet necessary to come straighten all of this for us right now, we are left to our own devices to do as best we can in a world not yet governed by God. This includes the attempts of some to make one set of parties more 'entitled' than the other in an attempt to balance the unbalanced, whether that party is the better choice morally in each instance or not.

>>>>I conclude that there are too many variables in the affairs of man in this world of today when morality has been so skewed. If all men were indeed honorable in the eyes of God, then surely these truths wouldn't have to be argued. It is sad that they have to be, which says much about how honor has weakened over the centuries, while God's Law remains unchanged and unchanging.

Frieda

-------Original Message-------

From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Date: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:33:25 PM

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Custody of children

if peopel would do what they are told according to the bible before walking into a marriage, we would not have heartaches and hurt families, children etc.

just my 2 cents.....

char

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#3883 From: Nilbux@...
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 12:06 am
Subject: Winner says: hadagin
Send Email

A man who beat the state income tax said this:

"In Illinois the tax act IMPOSES a tax on the
privilege--of earning or receiving---as a resident.
Notice: not as a citizen--but as a resident."

(what about those with priveledge who received nothing?
Are they still taxed for their priviledge?)

    (his emphasis)

   As for myself, I was convicted in Missouri,
   won a new trial on appeal. After refusing
   a plea bargain with no jail time, case was
   dismissed. Now they are suing me for tax
   but Director of Revenue will not answer
   interrogatory. She replied to first with no
   signature where a notarized signature is
   required. I told judge that opened new
   questions and got 10 week continuance.
   I have not yet complained about lack of
   notarization.

   I have a one page report with details for
   those who request it.

#3884 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:13 am
Subject: federal judges don't have to be citizens supremelawfirm
Send Email

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/lawless.htm

Here is what I wrote in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm

[begin excerpt]

      Evans has never been  overturned  (see Shepard's Citations),

notwithstanding  a UCLA Law  Review  article  which  alleges  the

contrary:  "The Constitutional  Guaranty  against  Diminution  of

Judicial Compensation," Vol. 24, Dec. 1976, p. 308 at 332, n. 94.

C.J. William H. Rehnquist  has  argued,  before the University of

Arizona Law  School in  January of  1997,  that  Evans supra  was

overturned  by  O'Malley  v.  Woodrough,  307  U.S.  277  (1939).

Appellant disputes the main holding in O'Malley supra,  for being

predicated upon the following two false and rebuttable premises:

(1)  there is only one class of citizens (there are 2); and,

(2)  all federal judges are citizens of either class (but no  <---- !!!
      federal law requires judges to be citizens at all).

[end excerpt]


Yes, it's the Chinese communist model:  slave labor
pays for military uniforms and judges' uniforms;
we believe that federal judges are heavy investors
in Unicor.

Guess who receives the dividends from the profits
that Unicor "derives" from prison labor?  Is Unicor
charging the Pentagon a market rate for its products,
while only paying its prisoners 23 cents per hour?

If you go to the Unicor website, you'll see a man
in judicial garb, in a photo on that homepage:

http://www.unicor.gov

So, when I say that the IRS has infiltrated the
DOJ and the federal judiciary, I am not kidding
one bit.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General


--- Pat Koenig <patk1@...> wrote:
> Subject: Judges don't have to be citizens
>
>
> >> Egad!! This is worse than I thought. I have a vivid imagination but
> >> your "Go figure" comment implies this is not sinister.
> What began running through my mind as I read your words below is that
> we, the courts, have been infiltrated with foreigners �spies placed
> there with the explicit intent to �I can't even begin to think of what
> it is that would be fitting here.
>
> Maybe they are placed in the courts to  fill the prisons with .23 cent
> an hour jobs for UNICOR Prison Industries!! as Rose Lear says.
> Since their job is only to do that what other reason could there be,
> but to make more and more of us prisoners?
>
> I recall checking the New Jersey and Federal Constitution not too long
> ago and was shocked to discover the absence of a citizenship
> requirement for any federal or state judge. Have you found that
> requirement in the Constitution in case I missed it?
> How is it possible that people who have power to throw us in jail can
> be imported from foreign soil and plopped right down and take over our
> judiciary?
> Pat
>
>
> , I have obtained SUBPOENA's from the district clerk in
> >> Sacramento, compelling a subset of attorneys in my case against
> >> AOL to produce their licenses;  all failed to do so.
> >>
> >> I have submitted FOIA requests for the Presidential Commissions
> >> of numerous federal "robes";  DOJ now tells me whether or not
> >> they have a Presidential Commission in their custody, because
> >> they are the legal custodians of those Commissions.
> >>
> >> Dale A. Drozd turned up without any oath of office and without
> >> any license to practice law;  in order to be a U.S. magistrate,
> >> he was required by law to be a member of the State Bar for
> >> at least 5 years.
> >>
> >> William B. Shubb turned up without a Presidential Commission;
> >> he currently claims to sit as the Chief Judge of the USDC
> >> in Sacramento, the capital of the largest State in the Union!!
> >>
> >> Stephen Trott turned up without a Presidential Commission
> >> and he was assigned to the 3-judge appellate panel in my
> >> case, when it was at the Ninth Circuit.
> >>
> >> I mentioned ALL of these problems in my PETITION FOR WRIT
> >> OF CERTIORARI TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, now before the
> >> U.S. Supreme Court here:
> >>
> >> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> supremelawfirm-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

#3885 From: "JAH" <jahpublications@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: Custody of children jahpublications@...
Send Email

Dear Char et al,

I hope you are all well and in good spirit.

What you state below is correct and is why God made His Law The Way He did, to prevent women from being able to divorce their husbands and take their children and homes away from them, forcing them to have to find somewhere else to live, whilst still paying for their family home. If a woman cannot divorce her husband and has to obey him as God commands her to, then there would be no divorce and that is best for everyone, especially the children.
http://anycities.com/jahtruth/cuofch.htm

King of kings' Bible - Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.
3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I COMMANDED thee, saying, Thou shalt NOT eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life (Eno. 96:12-13);
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
http://jahtruth.co.uk/kofkad.htm

This is all explained in detail in "The Way home or face The Fire", available via PayPal, from:-
http://anycities.com/jahtruth/wayad.htm

The ONLY Way to put things right and regain your children and your homes is to enforce The Plan and reinstate God's Law:-
http://anycities.com/jahtruth/plan.htm

God has prohibited men from legislating, on pain of death, and so the legislation the courts are using to take away your children and your homes is unlawful:-

King of kings' Bible - Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
http://jahtruth.co.uk/kofkad.htm

King of kings' Bible - Deuteronomy 17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the "I AM" shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it [to] the right hand, nor [to] the left.
17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the "I AM" thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).
http://jahtruth.co.uk/kofkad.htm

If you want God to help you, you must bring Him into the courtroom and quote His Law to the black-robed false priests (judges) and put the fear of God into them.

God has warned you in the Bible that, if you do not return to His Law, He is going to burn you all to ashes, so I recommend you take this and The Plan extremely seriously:-

King of kings' Bible - Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye and return to The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you EliJAH the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the "I AM" (Sura 43:61):
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curs (verse 1).
http://jahtruth.co.uk/kofkad.htm

That time is now, because I am the person referred to in verse five. I advise you not to laugh, but to take this extremely seriously.

LLTF,

JAH.

--

http://jahtruth.co.uk/

--

----------
From: Trooper753@...
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Custody of children
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2003, 10:55 pm

jah i know what your saying and i almost agree....my thinking is that a child needs a certain type of nurturing that a mother can usually give better than the father. i dont hink it is God's plan for folks to divorce at all. there are two reasons for divorce in the bible i believe. when we make the decision to get married- we are also to seek the approval of our parents- no matter what the age. when people walk into a biblical marraige and do what please god first he will bless the marraige. what i am trying to say is- we as a society often tell God what we are gonna do- ask him to bless yada yada.....then we are left scratching our heads and our back sides trying to figure out what went wrong.
if peopel would do what they are told according to the bible before walking into a marriage, we would not have heartaches and hurt families, children etc.
just my 2 cents.....
char

#3886 From: "Dessie Andrews" <dessieandrews@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 1:18 pm
Subject: RE: Minimal Rules for Tips & Tricks dessie234
Send Email

Hey Bear,

I forgot to post a divorce win last Monday.  My client, Stuart Gerstacker,
had been sued for divorce by his wife Kim.  At first he had an attorney.
Since then, he's attempted to recuse the judge, set hearings, etc., and been
refused.  He hasn't seen his baby son since February, Kim took him to Ohio.


He filed a Motion for Bond Forfeiture and the hearing was on Monday the
27th.  You'll be able to read the motion at www.savemyson.org, Fighting
Back, third from the bottom of the list.  When he went to court, the wife's
attorney, Holland was not present, nor was the other attorney for the state.
The County Attorney, Sherine Thomas was there instead.  The "testimony"  by
the judge and Sherine was to the effect they had no idea what he was talking
about.  What bond?  There was no bond, etc., etc.,  Then the judge ruled
that his Motion for Bond Forfeiture was denied, asked if Sherine had an
order, she had it ready and passed it up for signature.  Stuart objected,
but was ignored.

You can read the order which is below the Motion on the web page.  The case,
the entire case was dismissed with prejudice.  That's what we wanted, but we
didn't ask for it.  The judge and Sherine did that all by themselves.
Rather than expose the fraud and sham of the commercial courts, they dumped
the action.  In my opinion, that means that 1) Kim can't file for divorce
from Stuart in the State of Texas, and 2) the minor child, Alexander is
emancipated from the State.

And if that wasn't enough, Kim had filed a sister action in Ohio.  The
afternoon of the 27th, that action was dismissed on motion of the plaintiff.


Stuart is now negotiating with Kim in private for custody arrangements and
property settlement, as they should.  The state has no business in a
divorce, it is a private matter between a man and a woman.

#3887 From: "Frieda Nugen" <frieda.ebay@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 5:50 pm
Subject: RE: Custody of children jln405
Send Email

Sorry I have to disagree in part here. It is quite true that a Godly man should have control of his home; however we all must remember not all men or women are following God's Plan, nor are all marriages on paper contracted by God. I went to this website, and it expressly details when a man is wrong or is not following the Plan by abusing his authority in the home. It details such things as not paying what is agreed before he divorces her (the Koran apparently allows divorce, but only for the man) not providing, and for hurting the mother and the children. Not all fathers deserve custody just because of birthright and becoming a father.

Both parents are morally responsible for the children, and if the mom chooses God over her ungodly husband's abuse in order to protect the children and herself to care for the children, then the Plan has changed. That father is no longer following God's will and it does seem that he should not be allowed custody, and if the wife paid any of her funds for the marital home, the home should be for the children and he should leave. If he paid with all his funds, then he should still provide them a home. This even sounds morally right. It is true that although fathers have more potential to support children than do mothers, it is tradition and natural instincts that make the children when young, need their mothers love and closeness more than fathers until they mature. Witness many years past the sailors and soldiers who left for months at a time with no contact with their children, but the mothers were there to raise and support them. The family was apparently still intact, sure, but the father was noticeably absent, and the children became used to that and still matured. I'm assuming they were still in authority over their household, but were not present a great deal of the time.

I hope this post is not indicative of the tone of this group. There are many fathers out there that should have custody and many who shouldn't. It is wrong to assess all mothers as undeserving of custody and all fathers as godly fathers. My God loves me and my children, and maybe one day He will reach my ex. I refuse to believe that God would have His children follow an ungodly father in abusing their mother and children. How would the children be expected to follow the Plan with such ungodly leadership in the home?

Frieda

#3888 From: "law_self_help" <law_self_help@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:40 pm
Subject: Fwd: Where expert witness testimony is bought law_self_help
Send Email

--- In Legal_Self_Representation@yahoogroups.com, "law_self_help"
<law_self_help@y...> wrote:
There's a number of Expert Witness Services companies readily
findable on the Net providing professional expert witnesses to
testify in Court cases. Obviously whoever pays for their services
will get testimony from them slanted in their favor. Rates for such
testimony are usually hourly and often range from tens into hundreds
of dollars per hour depending on witness qualifications, scientific
degrees etc. Here's one such company:
http://www.itestify.com/ There is some information on this site for
Pro Se litigants.
Here's another supplier of witnesses -
www.witness.net
  Such witnesses can be discredited on the witness stand during cross
examination if their previous testimony in other cases' records is
reviewed in advance and it can be shown that they presented very
different opinions in previous similar cases. It would also help to
highlight that they are professional witnesseses testifying for
anybody who will pay.
--- End forwarded message ---

Reply | Messages in this Topic (6)

#3889 From: "Uh... I forgot" <elsunshine1983@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 8:18 pm
Subject: RE: Divorce Questions elsunshine1983
Send Email

I am trying to get a divorce my ex will not give me a non contested
divorce on the reason's i left him which were Adultery and
Inhuman Treatment.... I beliece in New York State there is no
such thing as  irreconsible differences as a reason for divorce....
he says that , that is what a noncontested divorce is Can anyone
please tell me if that is true, I am pregnant with another man's
child and I do not want my child to have my ex;s last name and
neither does the father...... if I wait the year to the day I left
him the
divorce will not be final when the baby is born. I left on May 22nd
and the baby is due on June 6th, Thanks for any answers you
can give me

#3890 From: "phantom469366" <phantom469366@...>
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 10:14 pm
Subject: Fwd: Rick Stanleys' Nemesis-FEDERAL JUDGE Robert L Patterson phantom469366
Send Email

Group members,

I received an invitation to join this group,by whom I can only
wonder.Was it something I said?Could be.I decided to start with this
post to see what kind of follow up this gets.

Tim White




--- In CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com, "phantom469366" <phantom469366@y...>
wrote:
I received a call from Mark Holstlaw(Denver FBI-Joint Terrorism Task
Force)Friday evening about this post-someone dropped a copy on his
desk Fri. afternoon.Seems like A LOT of people in local law
enforcement(Denver?)and the FBI/DOJ are REALLY upset about this info
coming out-now "THEY" want to label ME a TERRORIST.Since Holstlaw
knows me well-knows I am NOT a TERRORIST,but,in fact,a very informed
and active PATRIOT,he had to make numerous calls to calm the Gestapo
Types down.I can only assume that "THEY" are now trying to figure out
what kind of charges may be brought against me since Pattersons'
secret was exposed by me-"THEY" need to think long and hard about ANY
action against me since I do have a track record in Court saying VERY
embarrassing things about "THEM",charges and probations have been
dropped in the past because of this-gotta keep Tim White QUIET!The
ENTIRE case against Rick Stanley
is now at risk by this revelation,confirmed by one of Ricks'
attorneys that I spoke with yesterday(Brett Davies).Even Holstlaw
admitted to me that if indeed Patterson IS a federal Judge,it would
be a VERY serious situation to handle.I firmly believe that major
damage control is now being executed but most likely too late
for "THEM".Patterson does,in fact,have a Federal background from
Washington State and more about him will come out very soon.


Tim White,  Concerned Citizen,Viet Nam Vet





--- In CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com, "phantom469366" <phantom469366@y...>
wrote:
Yes,you read this correctly.A FEDERAL JUDGE sitting on the bench of a
County Court Room(151P)in the HOME RULE City and County of Denver.I
have this information directly from a good friend of mine(retired CIA
asset who I have known for 8 1/2 years)who has known Patterson for
more than 2 years,he has been to his home.It is,IN FACT,the FEDS who
are behind this illegal,un-CON-Stitutional action against Rick(whom I
personally know),using Municipal and County Judges(under FEDERAL
CONTROL)to go after Rick and to use him for an example.It is my firm
belief that the FEDS will attempt to use the provisions of Patriot
Act I,Patriot Act II,and Homeland Security as a means to jamb Rick on
bogus felony charges to ensure he is in prison for YEARS instead of
months.I was on the phone with Pam Stanley on Monday to explain this
to her.I have been provided the address and home phone number of
FEDERAL JUDGE ROBERT L PATTERSON by my contact.
             R Patterson
             400 S. Steele St. #2
             Denver Co.  80209
             home ph 303-744-6554
          This is a security gated exclusive area that is patrolled.


Tim White-Concerned Citizen,Viet Nam Vet
--- End forwarded message ---
--- End forwarded message ---