I've stumbled across research that seems to indicate that most modern
alleged "acts" of legislature are non-constitutional on their face due to
the lack of enacting clause which specifies the legislative origin of
authority.
-Cyril Grossé
________________________________________________________________
"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie
was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to
the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and
its speaker, a raving lunatic." --Dresden James
-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of paradoxmagnus
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:04 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Case law on tendering payment (gold)
If you really want case law, you might like this.
Patrick in California
"An unconstitutional act is not law: it confers no rights; it imposes
no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yes true.
Before the government allowed lawyers free access to
the family units net worth there was the church to
solve maritial issues. The goal of the church was to
keep the families together, not destroy peoples lives
for profit and reward.
This is the result of Judicial activism and feminist
jurisprudence.
--- wlspence1 <wls@...> wrote:
> --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,
> <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
>
> > I guess that's why the government feels it can
> tell parents how to
> > raise their kids.
>
> Unless there's perceived danger to the
> childen---which the government
> must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's
> a matter of one
> parent inviting the government in, to attack the
> other parent. This
> bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
>
> Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a
> contract, unless
> one of the parties calls on the state to give it an
> advantage over the
> other.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Well you cannot just site the constitution. Yes it is a first class legal authroity but, from begining of a Republic case law (form of common law) has always been used to define such things as our constitution, law, court rules etc. As to it being worthless opinions I do aploygies if this offends anyone , but in my experiance positive case law (headnotes, or legal holdings not context of case) when used correctly has boxed even the most prejudical of courts into a corner where they had to rule in my favor. So case law that is head notes or holdings that are positive law will make your case. The one real problem with just citing the constitution here is that since the UCC came in and since I am assume this is dealing with a mortgage of some kind you cannot boardly cite the constitution as a defense. Their first and valid defense will be that under the contract which is government by UCC (most contracts actaully state this) it was agree that certain tender which is consider federal reserve notes are considered legal tender in whatever state in most of these contracts. In order to win on that type of argument you will have to cite state case law states gold and silver is tender (remeber states can always give more constitutional protects that supersede federal), that the bank in forming and excution of the contract actaully never gave anything of value (since federal resevre notes not worth nothing and all partyies in contract must give somthing of value in order not to be adhesive or void), this is where tender case law comes in to show value, also we have to show how you truly where not aware of this at time(so then can not raise defenses that you where aware of all conditions of contract) this is so they can not bring up not our fault you made dumb contract, and finally you will want speically plead this in most states as your answer and motion to dismiss or you may waive right to.(most states require void contracts, or usury, fraud, to be raised speificaly in answer with facts supporting it or it is consider waived).
If this is a mortgage there are other defenses I will look for such as TILA violations, RESPA violations, or even state law violation of usuary statutes(above legal limit Illinois is 9 percent)
If credit card FDCPA, FCRA, and defenses such as lack of personal knowledge (failure to have affidavit filed with complaint)
If you like I can send you tender case law for your state. I have already research all 50 states on the issues.
MODERATOR/BEAR: PAY ATTENTION!! DO NOT request the case law for your state by posting to the group; REQUEST IT STRAIGHT FROM JAMIE AT HIS EMAIL ADDRESS...THIS IS A WARNING!
So would be no problem. Oh what ever you do not cite that Michigan case that suppose to support Federal Resevre Money is no good etc. That case was overturned , not to mention it was only a case ruled on by magistrate (has no binding authority even in that local court), and from what I have seen is just a patriot siver bullet argument sold at high prices and personally know people that it failed to work for. Welll I hope this helps , that I did not assume anything incorrectly, and if did hope it still helps. Let me know if you want case law
Oh one last thing I used usuary defenses, as well as essiental elements of contracts, (no meeting of mind, considerartion, value etc), and void contract due to violation of statute in mortgage void judgment case and actaully had attorneys try to settle case after judgment been rendered for 5 years. That should show the power of it would have probably vacated if person who motion was used would have went through to hearing instead of dropping it.
Jamie
>From: greg lesher <downwiththeun@...>
>Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
>To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tips_and_tricks]Case law on tendering payment (gold)
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
So why do you need a license to get married?
A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.
Patrick in California
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "wlspence1" <wls@r...> wrote:
> --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
>
> > I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to
> > raise their kids.
>
> Unless there's perceived danger to the childen---which the government
> must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's a matter of one
> parent inviting the government in, to attack the other parent. This
> bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
>
> Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a contract, unless
> one of the parties calls on the state to give it an advantage over
the
> other.
Cyril Grosse' wrote:
> I've stumbled across research .........modern
> alleged "acts" of legislature >
It is my understanding that the "Enactment Clause" is
only required when the Congress of the united
States(50 union state Republics) is assembled and
legislating for the States.
I could be mistaken, and have been before, but as I
understand the jurisdiction of Congress it is
bifurcated, and they legislate for predominately the
"federal zone", and for the States only on rare
occasion.
Later,
Bob L.
> I've stumbled across research .........modern
> alleged "acts" of legislature >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Note: Mr Bear sorry about attaching case law I will not send attachments to group when for speific members. Thanks for the heads up.
The enactment argument is a beautiful legal pricnipal. I defined it in my Winning Before you Plea packet along with misnomer argument, the procedure verified complaint argument, and the common law verified complaint argument (no victum no crime). The enactment argument does take some good legal research to pull off and I have always gave a procedure reason to dismiss the charge so as to give court a way out. Iin most states that I know of it would be a question that the court would most likely require to be address by state supreme court first if you where to challenge the constitutionality of statute being charge with, but if use argument as grounds to attach charge for defects in the prosecution for missing valid statement of violation then this is simply procedural question. Below is segment from packet of mine I hope you find this interesting.
Layman’s definition: The enactment argument is when the books that contain the law are missing an enactment clause on the face of the law or the law itself failed to be enacted properly. One may think that this is trivial, but for example in Illinois the enactment clause was on the face of the law books from 1850 to 1975 that in itself should show its importance not to mention it is a piece of evidence the court then have to take mandatory judicial notice of. So what is the enactment clause? It simply is a statement that is required to be including in all bills (laws) in order to show the public that the law has been enacted.Most states require it in their constitution (In Iowa it is found in Art 3 sec 1 of their constitution In Illinois it is Art. 4 section 8) some do not. The courts have ruled that if the law books (statutes) lack this simple requirement they are not valid laws since courts are to interupt statutes as a whole.
Legal Definition: I will use Iowa and Illinois as an example
General assembly. SECTION 1. The legislative authority of this state shall be vested in a general assembly, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives: and the style of every law shall be. "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa."
Passage of Bills section 8 The enacting clause of the laws of this State shall be, “Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly.”
Application:In order to use this argument correctly one must apply their states case law in several areas of law.First, find when your state stopped placing the enactment clause in their law books. The reason for this is, when you can show that your state had the enactment clause in their books at one time, you can force the court to take judicial notice of that undisputable fact. Second, one must find case law on how the constitution of the state is supreme authority in your State court and all laws not pursuant to it are void. The reason for this is to force the court to abide by the constitutional requirements for statutes to have an enactment clause on the face of the law. Third, one must find case law on how the courts are required to read, construe, and apply statutes. The reason for this is that the court will not be able to say that the law has the enactment clause, but it is just not on the face of the law when they interpret the application of the enactment statute. Finally, give the court a way out by allowing them to dismiss your case on a procedural defect instead of trying to force the issue itself.
Sample format see motion to dismiss at end of this packet
>From: "Cyril Grosse" <cyril@...>
>Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
>To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Case law on tendering payment (gold)
>Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:56:04 -0700
>
>
Rre statutes that are non properly enacted VOID or are they PRIVATE
law?
Patrick in California
It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Dilts"
<christopherdilts@h...> wrote:
>
An honest man was being tailgated by a stressed out woman on a busy
boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just
in front of him.
He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he
could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the
intersection.
The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in
frustration as she missed her chance to get through the
intersection.
As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and
looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The
officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her
to the police station where she was searched, finger printed,
photographed, and placed in a holding cell.
After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened
the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the
arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.
He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up
behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the
guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him.
"I noticed the 'Choose Life'
license plate holder, the
'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday-
School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated
Christian fish emblem on the trunk.
Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."
. . . priceless
Agreed. That is the missing case cite I am looking for that says to the effect that the presumption is that UNLESS EXPRESED OTHERWISE, the "Laws of Congress" are under the "exclusive legislation" clause and apply only to the so called "federal zone".
Now apply that knowledge to the various excise and income tax laws in the IRC. Seems to me to fit nicely with Ralph's recent release of his research on "substantive" regulations - which most of the income tax laws don't have.
Wayne
On Sun, 1 May 2005 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Bob law <saveyourpay@...> writes:
---snip---
I could be mistaken, and have been before, but as I understand the jurisdiction of Congress it is bifurcated, and they legislate for predominately the "federal zone", and for the States only on rare occasion.
Is this what you were looking for?
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms
have the designated meanings. "Act of Congress" includes any act of
Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of
Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular
possession.
Title 18 United States Code FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
Rule 54. Application and Exception
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Sterling W Wyatt
<swwyatt@j...> wrote:
> Agreed. That is the missing case cite I am looking for that says
to the
> effect that the presumption is that UNLESS EXPRESED OTHERWISE,
the "Laws
> of Congress" are under the "exclusive legislation" clause and
apply only
> to the so called "federal zone".
>
> Now apply that knowledge to the various excise and income tax laws
in the
> IRC. Seems to me to fit nicely with Ralph's recent release of his
> research on "substantive" regulations - which most of the income
tax laws
> don't have.
>
> Wayne
>
> On Sun, 1 May 2005 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Bob law <saveyourpay@y...>
> writes:
> ---snip---
> I could be mistaken, and have been before, but as I
> understand the jurisdiction of Congress it is
> bifurcated, and they legislate for predominately the
> "federal zone", and for the States only on rare
> occasion.
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "paradoxmagnus"
<paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
> So why do you need a license to get married?
>
> A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.
Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce
the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally
more important thing is the _state_ of marriage that comes into
existence if the ceremony given legal force by the license is
performed.
It's implications regarding child custody are nevertheless rather
limited: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the
husband's, biology to the contrary sometimes, and a child artificially
conceived is regarded as a child of the marriage; that's about it.
The latter now also obtains within a registered domestic partnership
in California, as does community property law and various entitlements
to benefits, rights to guardianship, etc.
Lawyers---canon law attorneys---were involved even when marriage was
largely the province of the ecclesiastical courts. Probably the main
force behind creating a civil notion of marriage in Great Britian and
early America was the property-owning class's interest in controlling
who could inherit their wealth.
Even if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the exclusion of anything and everything else?
Moreover, a statute canNOT amend the Constitution -- only a lawful amendment can do that. Where is the Costitutional amendment that altered or abolished Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 5 and Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause I? I can't find them.
I agree but in mortgage for example it gives reference to UCC which allows FRN notes as tender. Not to mention most contracts state that the creditor is the one who decides what legal tender is in their contract. Plus we all know right to contract is a constitutional right and is binding unless person did not knowing waive a constitutional right (power of congress to coin money is not consider personal right but a mandated duty to congress) . As to the constitution overiding any statute yes you are absolutely right, but if you studied constitutional law you would know that the burden is against anyone claiming a statute is unconstitutional, the party must show how the statute shows no public interest, and go on an uphill battle since all statutes are considered presumed constitutionally vaild from the beging, and to challenge statute must follow proper procedure. Although above all the real probelm with bringing up very simplfied argument is the Supreme Court has already ruled that they will not hear if Congress gave it's authority to a FED to coin money because it is what they classifiy as a political question. Just like they will not hear anything about Republic form of government issue since it is politcal question. Making it next to impossible to win with such a simplified argument. If you do not beleive me study about 30 hours of constitutional law and I think you will see. May not be right but is the way it is.Hope I do not offend you but I spent quite alot of time researching the subject
In a message dated 5/2/05 12:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bill_of_rights@... writes:
Even if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the exclusion of anything and everything else?
Wiithin regards to above, my experience now tells me, hindsight servess 20/20 that both FRN as well as US Postal Money orders once sent are no longer acceptable means of transacting legal tender. I tried to pay an outstanding bill incurred with a major credit card company, only to learn first be told both forms of payment I was tendering them long time established as legal and acceptable, are no longer acceptable to them anymore, with warning given me should I continue on with same method as to means of paying my account, it would be terminated closed
Under the Constitution, government can only perform
those actions which are constitutional in means and results.
If Congress allows FRN to circulate, then they must do so
with the full principles of the Constitution, for nothing else
allows currency to be circulated.
The FRN must be identical to gold and silver coin.
This is what the Constitution demands.
WE know that they are not.
Did ya see the guys who "found" the old money as they
were fixing a roof in Massachusetts?
The notes were marked, gold and silver CERTIFICATES.
United State CERTIFICATES.
GOLD CERTIFICATES
SILVER CERTIFICATES
Now, because we "rent" them from the private central banking
cartel
known as the "Federal Reserve", they are only called
"notes".
Obtain old photos of what use to be written on our currency
and what is missing now on the central banking notes.
They ain't worth nothing!
At 10:16 AM 5/2/05 -0400, you wrote:
In
a message dated 5/2/05 12:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bill_of_rights@... writes:
Even
if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does
it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the
exclusion of anything and everything else?
Wiithin regards to above, my experience now tells me, hindsight servess
20/20 that both FRN as well as US Postal Money orders once sent are no
longer acceptable means of transacting legal tender. I tried to pay an
outstanding bill incurred with a major credit card company, only to learn
first be told both forms of payment I was tendering them long time
established as legal and acceptable, are no longer acceptable to them
anymore, with warning given me should I continue on with same method as
to means of paying my account, it would be terminated
closed Yahoo! Groups Links
I believe you can still ALLEGE that a "law" is OVERBROAD & thus
UNCONSTITUTIONAL as applied in matter at hand, can't you?
An ordinance which "as written, may result in arbitrary and erratic
arrest and convictions." Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 31 L
Ed 2d 110, 405 US 156, 92 S Ct 839
A Statute that permits unbridled police discretion and is
unconstitutional. Lanzetta v Jersey (1939) 83 L Ed 888, 306 US 451
@ 453, 59 S St. 618 @619. See also Grayned v City of Rockford
(1972) 33 L ed 2d 222, 408 US 104 @ 108, 109, 92 S Ct 2294 @2298-99
Patrick in California
It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Dilts"
<christopherdilts@h...> wrote:
>
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
> If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
> the marriage?
The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.
Unless one of the parents takes an issue to family court, what the
state can do to one's children is however quite circumscribed by a
series of US Supreme Court cases---stretching from the 1920s to the
present---which enunciate parents' rights as a fundamantal liberty
interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Otherwise, what the state mainly does in marriage is provide a default
form of a contract, which can in fact be overriden in a pre-nupt'.
You can for example in many states agree before marriage that there
will be no spousal support if the marriage is dissolved, but not that
child support be waived.
Basically, what you told me is that there is no law, because the Constitution is virtually ignored. I already knew that. Moreover, what contract do you have with the government, bank, or credit institutions that requires payment in FRN's to the exclusion of anything and everything else? I've certainly never seen one.
On May 2, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Bill wrote:
> To Christopher Dilts,
>
> Basically, what you told me is that there is no law, because the
> Constitution is virtually ignored. I already knew that. Moreover,
> what contract do you have with the government, bank, or credit
> institutions that requires payment in FRN's to the exclusion of
> anything and everything else? I've certainly never seen one.
>
I haven't used FRNs since 1981.
And nobody ever told me I had to, either.
I don't understand why so many people think it's mandatory to use them.
So many people believe so many lies.
I do know that courts will enforce their acceptance in the discharge of
debts.
"Neither borrower nor lender be."
Debt is the absence of money due and payable, but to most Americans,
it's just as acceptable as money in return for their life, liberty and
property, probably because they were taught in school that -1.00 is
equal to +1.00. And few living today have memories of carrying silver
and gold in their pockets everyday. Most people living today haven't
known real money, and are trained to think of evidences of debt as
money. And most don't care as long as whatever is used obtains the
pizza.
I care because use of debt carries with it certain legal disabilities.
What I was refering to was a mortgage and trying to bring up the tender argument in that type of sitatution.
As to what I was trying to say about legal arguments dealing with constitution are much more difficult then many try to say they are. I never said anything to the effect that the constitution is of no effect, only that trying to win on that legal argument would be next to impossible when taking basic principals of constitutional law. If you like you can question me, not believe me, or whatever but please do not twist my words. Again I do hope not to have offended anyone , just trying to lead people in the right to direction.
On May 2, 2005, at 5:14 PM, wlspence1 wrote:
> The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
> under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.
Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
being acting as its agent.
If one who didn't like being the subject or object of state assertions
was really serious, (s)he would not permit unqualified or unauthorized
persons to speak or act for the state. But the decision to waive
rights to due process is a decision everyone is free to make, that's
for sure. And by all evidence, it is a very popular course of action.
I don't know whether the case is valid for banks, lending institutions, credit card issuers, etc. due to the fact that every State terminated their usury laws in the 1970's to allow the proliferation of high priced credit instruments across the US. Here in Nevada we have instant cash places that proudly proclaim (on a little card stuck high up close to the ceilings) their interest rates start at over 252% annualized. You will have to check your State codes or statutes to determine the applicability of the usury laws. I hope this helps. pd
paradoxmagnus@... wrote:
Anyone have this case. Since the DOJ cites it, it appears to be real.
Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607 (Ch. 1941), aff'd, 132
Practice before the IRS covers all matters relating to any of the following.
Communicating with the IRS for a taxpayer regarding the taxpayer's rights, privileges, or liabilities under laws and regulations administered by the IRS.
Representing a taxpayer at conferences, hearings, or meetings with the IRS.
Preparing and filing documents with the IRS for a taxpayer.
Corresponding and communicating
Just preparing a tax return, furnishing information at the request of the IRS, or appearing as a witness for the taxpayer is not practice before the IRS. These acts can be performed by anyone.
From the citation, it's a New Jersey case, also reported in Atlantic
Reporter, 2nd Ed. You SHOULD be able to order it from your friendly
neighborhood Law Library [probably free or cost-of-fax/delivery]. It's
NOT going to do you a lot of good in California.
California's Usury law [which still exists] is in The Civil Code, @
sections 1963 and following [I think, it's been @ 3 yrs since I looked
for it]. Deering's Codes annotations are more citizen-friendly than
West's.
<paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
> Anyone have this case. Since the DOJ
> cites it, it appears to be real.
>
> Ryan v. Motor Credit Co.,
> 130 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607 (Ch. 1941), aff'd, 132
> N.J. Eq. 398, 28
> A.2d 181 (1942) (violation of usury laws).
>
> I'm looking into proof of scienter (knowing). The defense has been
> recognized in that and other cases involving strict-liability
> statutes.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Patrick in California
I know you don't remember me, but I asked you a question many months ago, basically stating how you avoid alot of issues, i.e. tax issues, andd you basically gave me some questions to ask anyone in authority if they are requesting or demanding you to do anything...Can you see if you still have that email in your saved/sent file because I was goingto print it but stupid aol deleted it before I had a chance...thanks,
Send Email
