I don't know if
the US law is the same but
in the UK
breaking the speed limit is what they call an "absolute offence".
I just rejected
a post about this and decided that it would be informative to the group to
understand that in America
the equivalent of an “absolute offence” is a “strict
liability statute.” I ran a search on Google and found this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability:
Criminal Law
Strict
liability statutes are also utilized in criminal law, though to a lesser
extent. The statute is often used in traffic offences such as speeding law -
meaning it would not matter if the defendant knew they were exceeding the
posted speed limit. The prosecutor would need only
prove that the defendant was indeed in excess of the speed limit. The onus
would be on the defendant to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that he
genuinely believed that he was travelling below the
speed limit.
Statutory rape
is another example of a strict liability offence. This prevents defendants from
raising defences along the line of 'I did not know
he/she was underage.' Again, the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant
engaged in the sexual activity. The onus rests on the defendant to demonstrate
that he genuinely and reasonably believed that the other party was not
underage.
Strict
liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental
capacity defences - since intent does not need to be
proven.[1]
[edit]
References
"Garnett
v. State" briefed by Joel Samaha, Department of
Sociology at the University
of Minnesota, June 9,
2001, retrieved July 30, 2006
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability"
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO80634
The STATE of Ohio v. NEDELKOFF. No. 9309. April 15, 1970.
Prosecution for operating motor vehicle at an unreasonable and improper speed. The County Court, Columbiana County, MacDonald, J., held that where highway on which defendant physician was driving while en route to hospital to attend patients was dry and straight and traffic was light, defendant's speed of 60 miles per hour in posted 45-mile-per-hour zone was reasonable and proper. Charge dismissed.
(Ed. Note: The fact this was a doctor in an emergency had nothing to do with this case. Editors note not in the original case reporter)
Even though a defendant is shown to have been operating motor vehicle at speed determined by director of highways to be prima facie unlawful, if speed was reasonable and proper under circumstances the defendant must be found not guilty. R.C. § 4511.21.
Where highway on which defendant physician was driving while en route to hospital to attend patients was dry and straight and traffic was light, defendant's speed of 60 miles per hour in posted 45-mile-per- hour zone was reasonable and proper. R.C. § 4511.21. Syllabus by the Court
Although the defendant is shown to have been operating a motor vehicle at a speed determined by proper procedures of the Director of Highways to be prima facie unlawful on that portion of the highway involved, where the trier of the facts determines that, at the time and place and under the circumstances and all conditions existing, his speed was reasonable and proper, the defendant must be found not guilty of violating R.C. s 4511.21.
Thomas N. Fannin, East Liverpool, for plaintiff. George Aronson, East Liverpool, for defendant.
RULING OF THE COURT MacDONALD, Judge.
The defendant, Jeko M. Nedelkoff, was charged with a violation of R.C. 4511.21 on an affidavit in the form of a uniform traffic ticket signed by Patrolman D. Baker of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. The affidavit was sworn to and filed in this court on March 16, 1970, in which affidavit it was charged that on March 15, 1970, at 10:45 p. m. the defendant operated a motor vehicle on State Route 45 north of the village limits of Lisbon, Ohio, at an unreasonable and improper speed, to wit, a speed of 60 miles per hour in a posted 45 mile-per- hour zone. The defendant was arraigned in this court on March 17, 1970, and entered a plea of not guilty. On the issues joined, the case came on for trial before this court on April 15, 1970.
R.C. 4511.21 is entitled Speed Limits; Modifications and is the section of the motor vehicle traffic laws which is designed to regulate the speed of motor vehicles upon the *154 streets and highways of the state of Ohio. The section provides: 'No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon the streets and highways at a speed greater, or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions * * *.' The section, then, provides that it is prima facie lawful for the operator of a motor vehicle to operate the same at a speed not exceeding certain limits under certain situations and locations. For example, 60 miles per hour during the day time and 50 miles per hour during the night time on highways outside municipal corporations. State Route 45, which runs in a northerly direction from the municipal limits of the village of Lisbon is a duly established state highway, and the provisions of the statute providing that it is prima facie lawful to operate a motor vehicle at a speed not exceeding the limits designated would apply to State Route 45; with certain exceptions. R.C. 4511.21 provides further that it is prima facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations established by the statute.
In addition to the prima facie limits set forth in the statute, the statute provides further that whenever the Director of Highways determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any prima facie speed set forth in Divisions (A) to (I), inclusive, of this section is greater, or less, than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any place upon any part of a state route, the director is authorized to determine and declare a reasonable and safe prima facie speed limit, which shall be effective, when appropriate signs giving notice are erected on such part of the state route.
The records indicate that the Director of Highways of the state of Ohio, having followed the procedures set forth in the authorizing statutes, has reduced the prima facie speed limit on State Route 45 for a distance of three miles north of the village limits of the village of Lisbon, Ohio, and has by appropriate action established such prima facie limit to be 45 miles per hour, and this stretch of highway bears appropriate signs giving notice of such prima facie limit, such signs being placed approximately a quarter of a mile apart on each side of the highway.
(1) The evidence in this case establishes the fact that, at the time and place charged in the affidavit, the defendant was exceeding the prima facie limit so established. The officer's testimony was that the defendant was followed for a distance of some mile and a half to two miles, and that, during the time he was observed, his speed was 60 miles per hour. It is not seriously controverted by the defendant that he was operating at the time and place at a speed in excess of the prima facie limit.
The words 'prima facie' are Latin in origin, although they have now been included in Webster's Standard Dictionary and have been defined as meaning 'at first sight; on first view before further examination; and in law, adequate to establish a fact, or raise a presumption of fact unless refuted.'
'Prima facie evidence is merely proof of the case upon which the jury (or court) may find a verdict unless rebutted by other evidence. In other words, prima facie evidence is not conclusive, but such as may be overcome by evidence to the contrary; and such evidence is to be weighed together with the other evidence, and in connection with the reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence which obtain in all criminal trials.'
In the case of State v. Schultz, 1 Ohio Misc. 81, 205 N.E.2d 126, 30 O.O.2d 420, the court held as follows: '* * * in the State of Ohio, under the provisions of 4511.21 of the Revised Code of Ohio, there is no fixed speed limit.' (Emphasis added.) In the case of Tenhunfeld v. Parkway Taxi Cab Co., 105 Ohio App. 425, 152 N.E.2d 770, 6 O.O.2d 182, the court stated:
'The statute (R.C. 4511.21) continues by making it prima facie unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle at a speed greater than (those speeds set forth in the *156 statute). It is conceded that plaintiff was driving at a prima facie unlawful speed, but whether he violated the statute * * * was a question of fact for the jury, in the light of all attendant circumstances. A prima facie unlawful speed may be rebutted by evidence, which a jury might find would bring such speed within lawful limits.'
In the case of Cleveland v. Keah (1952), 157 Ohio St. 331, 105 N.E.2d 402, 47 O.O. 195, decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, Syllabus 1 is, in part, as follows: * * * Such a provision as to speed is merely a rule of evidence raising arebuttable presumption which may be overcome by evidence that in the circumstances the speed was neither excessive nor unreasonable.' See also City of North Ridgeville v. Munkacsy, 4 Ohio App.2d 389, 212 N.E.2d 826, 33 O.O.2d 488 (Lorain County), and Lehman v. Westhoven, 10 Ohio App.2d 66 (Allen County). The evidence in the case under consideration was that the defendant Nedelkoff is a doctor of medicine, and, at the time and place of the alleged offense, he was on his way to the Salem City Hospital to attend two patients. Dr. Nedelkoff testified that the patients he was attending were serious cases, and that he was attempting to get to Salem as soon as possible. Whether or not an emergency actually existed is certainly not for this court to say. The defendant, Dr. Nedelkoff, being a physician and doctor of medicine, would certainly be in a better position than this court, or the arresting officer, to say.
The evidence further was and is not controverted that the highway was perfectly dry. There was no snow, or wet condition to cause a hazard; that the highway is a modern highway with a hard, paved surface 24 feet wide. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that said highway is a perfectly straight stretch. Although it is what might be termed rolling, there are no exceptionally steep grades, and there is nothing to indicate any other particularly hazardous situation in regard to this stretch of highway. The arresting officer testifies that there was no evidence, and that he did not observe any reckless operation whatever; and, with the exception of the fact that the defendant was exceeding the prima facie limit, he was not in violation of *157 any other traffic law. The evidence was that the amount of traffic on the highway at this particular time and place was very light.
Route 45 north of the corporate limits of the village of Lisbon for a distance of some 2 1/2 to 3 miles is considerably built up with business establishments and rural residences. There are some intersecting township roads and numerous driveways leading into private residences and business establishments. It is assumed that, because of this condition, the Director of Highways deemed it advisable to reduce the prima facie limit to 45 miles per hour. However, the court must take into consideration in this case the fact that the offense charged was at the hour of 10:45 p. m. At that hour, there are few, if any business establishments open, and at that particular hour, there would be relatively few vehicles proceeding into private driveways, or out of private driveways. (2) Taking all these matters into consideration and considering all the facts of the case, as established by the evidence, this court finds that the defendant Nedelkoff has successfully rebutted the presumption referred to, and the court, therefore, finds that, at the time and place and under the circumstances and all conditions existing, that the defendant's speed was reasonable and proper. The court, therefore, finds the defendant not guilty. The charge is, therefore, dismissed. Ohio Co. 1970. State v. Nedelkoff, 263 N.E.2d 803, 24 Ohio Misc. 153, 53 O.O.2d 200
Ostrich -(one definition) a person who attempts to ignore unpleasant facts or situations.
Did the Declaration of Independence start with WE THE OSTRICH? One
would think so if we are to presume government has progressed to the
point we are today.
Throughout 3/4's of the film, "America:
Freedom to Fascism," Russo takes both a serious and humorous approach
at his honest quest to find out from policy makers if indeed there is a
law that compels Americans to to give a large portion of their working
wage to the IRS... which he seems to prove that not only is there no
law, but that the money then goes into the pockets of foreign banks.
His solution is civil disobedience.... that we mobilize, resist,
protest, and march! He shows two photos of Gandhi and the Reverend
Martin Luther King, Jr.
However, my question to this group
is, HOW CAN THAT METHOD POSSIBLY WORK? We now live in a country
where the media won't report the truth. Big brother is watching
(illegal wire taps ) and habeas corpus was a thin rug that has now been pulled from under us.
Unless 10 million people are willing to march (the fraud of both the
2000 and 2004 elections didn't motivate a fraction of that number of
people to march), who would take the chance of (character)
assassination (Gandhi and King) or to be incarcerated without the
opportunity of your day in court (habeas corpus GONE!) by taking the
chance to protest in this manner.
I ask the question, who is
the modern day Gandhi or King that has the vision to create something
MORE than civil disobedience. To get REAL numbers of people to do
something outside of the box to bring attention to the fact that in a
very short period of time the current leadership will have this country
in WW III. What has to be at stake for people to be motivated to band
together and actually make a dent in this corrupt system?
We have that in
Colorado as
well. It looks like this:
Justification
is recognized as an affirmative defense to the charge of speeding but the
defendant must present credible evidence as to the specific threat of injury
and the lack of a reasonable alternative other than commission of the offense. People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1990).
42-4-1101.
Speed limits. (1) No person
shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and
prudent under the conditions then existing.
Under this
subsection all you would have to show was that your speed was reasonable and
prudent under the conditions. Bear
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO80634
"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 1846, Henry David Thoreau, famous for his essay on "Civil Disobedience" was put in prison for refusing to pay taxes, based upon his principles. When his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson came to prison to visit him he asked: "What are you doing in there?" Thoreau replied indignantly:"What are you doing out there?"
I knew this was
in Colorado Statutes and just found it. This paragraph is self-explanatory:
42-4-1101.
Speed limits. (4) Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of subsection (8) of this section, any
speed in excess of the lawful speeds set forth in subsection (2) of this
section shall be prima facie evidence that such speed was not reasonable or
prudent under the conditions then existing. As used in this subsection (4),
"prima facie evidence" means evidence which is sufficient proof that
the speed was not reasonable or prudent under the conditions then existing, and
which will remain sufficient proof of such fact, unless contradicted and
overcome by evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the speed was
reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
Someone I know
overheard a judge tell someone else that he was going to find anyone who came
to his court making an argument based on the above paragraph not guilty of
speeding. All they needed to do was assert that the speed was “reasonable
and prudent under the conditions then existing.” In most cases the cop
went faster than you did covering the exact same stretch of road to catch you
proving that your speed was reasonable and prudent. Bear
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO80634
Under Federal Hiway trust fund regulations, the State, City, or County has to do a speed survey before they can establish a speed limit, which they can use to give you a ticket for speeding. This issue was won in court in Carson City Nevada a year or so ago. Another person did the same in Las Vegas, but the court ruled that he was guilty anyway.
The federal law rules when the jurisdiction takes any federal highway trust fund money.
Wally
Both stories were carried in the Editorial section of the Las Vegas Review Journal.
When an officer pulls you over for speeding and asks you "do you know how fast you were going" the answer is "I was driving at a reasonable and safe speed for the road conditions, the weather, the traffic and time of day."
At trial, if it gets there, you ask the officer what was the first question he asked you. Not including drivers license, insurance etc. Then ask him "what was the defendants response."
So because they explain what and how they're doing it, it's not a
scam? If you or I tried to write a check with nothing in the bank,
that would be called fraud. I fail to see how this is
different.
OTOH, it's kind of like when one person takes money from another without
their consent, that's theft; but when the government does it, it's called
taxes.
At 08:00 PM 10/3/2006 -0400, you wrote:
There is no scam. They
explain in there exactly what they are doing and how it's
done.
Joy Metcalf rosawoodsii@...
"A government under the U.S.
Constitution, to paraphrase columnist Joseph Sobran, would be a radical
improvement over the one we have today.Las Vegas Review
Journal
I think I've had good mentors who guided me on non Tax
number bank accounts by reporting my status on substitute
W8 form when given the W9 tax mumber/signature card.
There are so many miracles of jurisdiction the Federals
and corporations get away with, why not us too, being able
to deal in FRN's yet not be polluted by em. I wonder if
the oil sales overseas done in FRN's make them part of
the domestic IRS tax base too? If just buying fuel or
food with FRNs makes one completely owned by Fed/IRS
then why all the fuss here to seek a dejure satus as
a single resturant recipt shoot holes in any defense.
New Patriot Act ID requirements had bank asking for this
info again couple months ago. I responded that they had
this on file from the start and nothing has changed.
They responded by sending me a W8 BEN form, which
seemed to have apportate terms for my dejure status
w/o altering it as needs done on a plain jane W8, as
dejure's don't abide in no zip coded zones as it requests.
If the Infromant's info is complete about any FRN contact
disolving dejure status then look over this form the
bank sent me and I returned recently.
http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
hobot
I just wanted to let the group know that tonight the movie "AMERICA FREEDOM TO FASCISM" was to be shown in Chicago, but right before the movie the started the power to the theater was cut off, yet the surrounding buildings were still on. You can form your own opinion. I can tell you as the southwest coordinator for the release of the movie I doubt this is a "coincidence". Regardless, we have not been able to get t.v. advertising or any t.v. press for a movie that is easily breaking records for a limited release film.
Please do your country men, and women, a favor by letting them know about this movie. Even if they have seen a stolen copy they need to make a statement by going to the theater and standing with other patriots. This is the best way to send a statement to the pagans that we know the truth and are spreading the word.
John C.: Stuart mobinem@... c/o postal service address 21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472 Phoenix, Arizona cf 85050 cf John C. Stuart is a Sovereign natural flesh and blood man, of the soil. All rights reserved Without Prejudice Sovereign's confidentiality notice; This private email message, including any attachment(s)is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information. Any/all political, private or public entities, International, Federal, State, or Local corporate government(s), private International Organization(s) Municipality(ies), Corporate agent(s), informant(s), investigator(s) et. al., and/or third party (ies) working in collusion by monitoring my email(s), and any other means of communication without my permission are barred from any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution. With explicit reservation of all my rights, without prejudice and without recourse to any of my rights. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or all intellectual property rights or reserved rights. Notice to Principle is notice to Agent, Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
No, you would have to convince the trier of fact-the jury (or the judge
in a bench trial)-that your speed was reasonable and prudent under the
conditions. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. The
prosecution will try to convince the trier of fact otherwise of course.
Moderator/Bear: OK then, through clever cross examination or direct, how about
if we get the cop to say it out of his own mouth? So as to not involve myself in
the Socratic teaching method, that sounds like a really good idea to me.
Legalbear wrote:
>
>
> Under this subsection all you would have to show was that your speed
> was reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Bear
>
[76]*fn17 In Wells, there was overwhelming
evidence demonstrating the appellees were permanent Florida residents, thereby making the appeal
frivolous. The evidence included the fact that for almost sixteen years the
appellees have received homestead tax exemptions for their residence in
Florida, held only Florida driver's licenses, registered to vote only in
Florida, were physically present in Florida about eight months per year, and
their physicians, accountants, brokers, and church were all in Florida. The
only evidence against the appellees was that they had received a tax credit for
a summer home they owned in New
Hampshire. See Wells v. Vallier,
25 Fla. L. Weekly D1280 (Fla.
2d DCA May 26, 2000); see also Branch v. CharlotteCounty,
627 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(appeal held
frivolous because appellant's argument that the lower court's order was not
supported by substantial, competent evidence simply reargued facts presented to
the lower court). Visoly v. Security
Pacific Credit Corporation, 2000.FL.0047347
<http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 76; 768 So.2d 482 (Fla.App.
2000).
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO80634
> Moderator/Bear: OK then, through clever cross examination or direct,
> how about if we get the cop to say it out of his own mouth? So as to
> not involve myself in the Socratic teaching method, that sounds like a
> really good idea to me.
FF to cop: "Did you have a hard time catching up to me? It looks to me
that your speed was reasonable and prudent under the conditions!"
[23]As the payment was not voluntary, but made
under compulsion, no statutory authority was essential to enable or require the
county to refund the money. It is a well settled rule that "money got
through imposition" may be recovered back; and, as this court has said on
several occasions, "the obligation to do justice rests upon all persons,
natural and artificial, and if a county obtains the money or property of others
without authority, the law, independent of any statute, will compel restitution
or compensation." Marsh v. FultonCounty, 10 Wall. 676, 684; City of Louisiana
v. Wood, 102 U.S. 294,
298-299; Chapman v. County of Douglas, 107 U.S. 348, 355. To say that
the county could collect these unlawful taxes by coercive means and not incur
any obligation to pay them back is nothing short of saying that it could take
or appropriate the property of these Indian allottees
arbitrarily and without due process of law. Of course this would be in
contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, which binds the county as an agency
of the State. WARD ET AL. v. BOARDCOUNTYCOMMISSIONERSLOVECOUNTY,
40 S. Ct. 419, 253 U.S.
17 (U.S. 04/25/1920)
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO80634
Hi, First I'd like to say that I am thankful for any information
anyone can give me on this subject. I'd also like to mention that I
am in the state of Arkansas just for general reference.
I found out a few days ago that my 5 year old daughter has been being
molested/raped by a 12 year old. This was found out at her school on
Monday as she was playing with a boy in her class, they were playing
cops and she stuck her hand up his pant leg. She went to the
principals office where she was questioned as to why she did this. I
would like to say at this point the school still has not called me.
In any case apparently she started telling them that it has been done
to her. At which point the school counselor was called in. My
daughter came home from school as normal Monday afternoon. About a
half hour later a police officer knocked on my door. Asked for me and
then said I need to know how Child Services can get a hold of you. I
asked him why he would not tell me and then I gave him my number and a
few moments later, a lady with social services called me. Its been a
whirlwind since then. Tuesday she met with my daughter and I and
spoke with my daughter about several things. Many of which were
knowing the difference between lies and truth and knowing each body
part.
I should tell you at this point, the 12 year old who did this was not
only a girl, she is also my niece. At that time, my daughter in very
detailed descrption told the social worker what has been going on. I
don't know how graphic I can or can not be on here, but I will say it
crossed over from molestation to rape. What I am concerned with is my
legal stance and what I need to do. The social worker is actually
with the Arkansas State Police, stationed in the DHS office for
investigation. At this point, I have not been told to go to the
police station to file a report. I also was not asked to take her for
an exam with a doctor, however I did that today as I wanted to make
sure she was not damaged in any way in that area.
I should also tell you that altho I did not know till Monday night the
extent of it all, I have found out that my niece about a year ago was
caught doing stuff of a sexual nature with my cousins 6 year old son.
And then about a month ago she was caught making her brother and
another little girl do sexual things while she took pictures. This
specific case is with DHS because the little girl is in foster care
and already in the care of DHS. I know I don't need to tell you this
but I am MAD... ANGRY.
Basically, I need to know if I personally need to do anything else or
if the state will just take it from here. I also would like to know
if there are any other cases out there like this that I could read
about. As I want to know wh at they will do with my niece. From my
stand point I know she needs help, and I do want her punished for
this, but as she is a minor I am not sure what kind of tactics or
punishments they will dish out.
I want to make sure this NEVER happens to another child, not from her.
I can't save the world but I want to make a difference in this
instance. I have more questions but right now I will wait till I get
information about this to bombard you with them.
Thanks to anyone with any helpful information.
Sincerely,
Nikki
I would urge you to file a complaint with the police, and also take into
consideration that if your niece is doing this to other children, she has
also most likely been molested and/or raped herself. I can't
emphasize this strongly enough. Your niece has also been victimized
and may still be in that same situation. Does that excuse her
actions? Not at all, but she is in desperate need of help, and
without the proper parents to get it. At 12 years old, she may
still be able to be salvaged. To me, saving her life is far more
important than punishment, and IMHO, she won't get that help while social
services is involved. I'd file a complaint against social
services as well for allowing this to go on while she's in their
"care" and custody.
Joy Metcalf rosawoodsii@...
"A government under the U.S.
Constitution, to paraphrase columnist Joseph Sobran, would be a radical
improvement over the one we have today.Las Vegas Review
Journal
--- Faith Farm <faithfarm@...> wrote:
> You can do a search for Modern Money Mechanics, a
> publication from
> the Federal Reserve.
I am familiar with Modern Money Mechanics, but the
thrust of my post was questioning the legitimacy of
banks being able to create checkbook money.
>In Illinois, at least, shouldn't banks be prohibited
from
>the special privilege of issuing, what is in effect,
>counterfeit money, a deception, that which congress
>is not to allow?
>Am I missing something in this impromptu thought?
Scam? Absolutely. More appropriately, fraud. Even
closer, with any kind of loan from a bank, plus credit
cards, they all entail breach of contract.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The niece isn't the one in DHS care, its the other little girl she did
this to. As far as her being molested/raped herself, since this has
come out with my daughter she has made accusations to the fact that
someone else did it to her. From the ages of 8-10 years old. The
person she claims it was, is my dads x girlfriends son. There has
been a report filed. It was filed Tuesday. Now from what they've
told my brother, the guy confessed to having done it. I don't know
this for sure though as I haven't heard from the investigator on this
case.
I realize as she had this done herself it is totally likely that it is
why she has been doing it to other children. However, as I tried to
explain to my brother as he wants justice for what was done to his
daughter I also would like some for what was done to mine. I am not
suggesting putting her in Juvenile services would help. I know that
would only make it worse. And most likely when she got out and got
into the real world she would only offend again. On a personal note
what I would like to see happen is first and foremost a phychiatric
evaluation, to determine exactly what actions do need to be taken.
Which they are doing next tuesday before the state continues any other
action. I also believe in my own personal opinion that she should
have to do community service, as I know my niece on a personal basis
she needs this in more ways than one. I'd also like to see her put on
probation til she's 18. That way if there are any other offenses for
her, sexual or otherwise she can be dealt with accordingly. However I
know that the state is really not going to consider what I think
should be done.
More importantly, 4 possibly 5 other children have been seriously
hurt. Wednesday of next week they are comming to my home to do a home
study and also investigate as to weather or not she has done the same
things to my almost 3 year old son. For me this is no different than
if someone I didn't know had done this to my daughter. She is at the
age of innocence and that has been taken from her, she's been violated
and abused in my opinion in the worst way possible.
My biggest concern about the entire situation is that she will be "let
off" with councelling and not have any probation or any way to ensure
that this doesn't happen again. To me that would be an injustice.
Kind of like a DWI driver being forced to go to AA, but unless they
want to change the action they will only continue doing it because
they didn't want the help, they were forced to get it.
Even worse my niece doesn't seem remorseful. There has been no
apology and the one time I've seen her since she acts as though
nothing has went on and nothing has happened. This really worries me
about repeat offenses.
They will get her help. That is in the works right now. But where
are my daughters rights? Most importantly, if the state chooses to
do nothing because she is a minor how can I fight them. But until
they decide to take an action my hands are really tied I suppose.
We aren't talking about a child who doesn't know right from wrong.
When they caught her first offense her dad made her sign some kind of
paper work, the extent of what it said I do not know. She has been
brought up in church, around people who love her... ie my mom and
myself. Who have tried to help her. But we have all known she has
had serious attitude issues for the past 3 years. That is something
that does make sense now. At any rate, what I'm trying to say its not
as though she did not know it was wrong.
I'm really just having a rough time with this. So much is at stake.
Its most assuredly going to split my family. Because my brother
doesn't understand why I can't just overlook this, and I don't
understand why he chooses to.
So I guess in the end of it all, my main question is this, legally
where do I stand? What can I do? Thank you for your reply, and I do
hope anyone with any legal knowledge or personal will continue to
post. Advice is warranted and much greatly appreciated.
Angry in Arkansas
--- filmrat1 <filmrat1@...> wrote:
> I ask the question, who is the modern day Gandhi or
> King that has the vision to create something MORE
> than civil disobedience. To get REAL numbers of
> people to do something outside of the box to bring
> attention to the fact that in a very short period
> of time the current leadership will have this
> country in WW III. What has to be at stake for
> people to be motivated to band together and
> actually make a dent in this corrupt system?
There is no Gandhi or King because there is no
perceived injustice by the public that anyone can
rally around.
People are not able to "connect" with the dissolution,
just about, of this country. All that is, is. It is
just that "all that is," is not what it seems, so most
all of us remain unaware, and unaware of being
unaware.
From my own limited experience, people that I talk to
are not interested in the truth,for the truth is no
longer recognizable. The "Lie" is too entrenched.
Just my POV.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Subject: Authority to deligate visitation in California not unlimited
In re Hunter S. 9/18/06 CA2/8
.. The juvenile court cannot impermissibly delegate to the child's therapist,
DCFS or any third person, unlimited discretion to determine whether
visitation is to occur. (In re Donnovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474,
1476-1478.) In no case, may a child be allowed to control whether visitation
occurs. (In re S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 317-318; In re Julie M.,
supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 48.)
Charmaine consistently raised the issue of the juvenile court's failure to
enforce its visitation order for over two years. Through her attorney and her
own letters, she complained to DCFS and the court itself, but received no
assistance in response. While the original visitation order was never changed,
neither was it enforced. At one hearing the court stated that, although "from a
legal standpoint" it had made a visitation order, from a "practical standpoint"
it did not believe it had the power or duty to ensure visits actually took
place.
Instead, the court impermissibly abdicated its duty, delegating to Hunter's
therapist and to Hunter the power to decide whether, when and how the case
would "move forward" with visitation. (See In re Julie M., supra, 69
Cal.App.4th at p. 51 [The "ultimate supervision and control over this
discretion must remain with the court, not . . . therapists, and certainly not
with the children"].) The visitation order was never enforced simply because
Hunter continued to refuse any contact with his mother. This failure to
enforce the order was error. (In re S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp.
318-320; In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1138-1139
["Visitation may not be dictated solely by the child involved"].)
I just got a "certified assessment" with a 23C form. The
IRS manual says it's only available if the regular computer batch run is
not generated.
At 01:46 PM 10/5/2006 -0700, you wrote:
the disclosure officer replied that
IRS does not use 23C form anyway. At the
preliminary trial conference the US State attorney relied on that
disclosure officer's
stand. Does anybody knows if there's truth to this.
Thanks,
Joy Metcalf rosawoodsii@...
"A government under the U.S.
Constitution, to paraphrase columnist Joseph Sobran, would be a radical
improvement over the one we have today.Las Vegas Review
Journal
Does the assessment show an obligation for a tax due by showing what taxable activities one is involved in, where it is occurring, and how much grand total business one has made in order to come up with an amount due? If not, then it is no good.
The IRS must show an original contract with an original signature showing an obligation of a tax due.
Continue reading at JOPHome.com > We The People Vs US Gov Individuals to join your case to this class action. (Federal TORT will follow) (also see Rod Class' FamilyRightsRadio local page) Then listen & call in on Rod, Maria, Eddie.
Michael Noonan wrote:
> There is no Gandhi or King because there is no
> perceived injustice by the public that anyone can
> rally around.
You have to remember, much of that perceived "public" is recently
arrived with moist vertebra, and technically functionally illiterate, or
it is where I am and have been. I have not been everywhere recently.
So, I'm being totally subjective in this opinion. They do tell me with
confidence that I can fully expect to earn my own "racial history month"
within my lifetime.
> > People are not able to "connect" with the dissolution,
> just about, of this country.
Just about? I called "game over" two years ago at least, and was right
about it. Here was my observation: NOBODY is really "doing their job".
It is ALL a SHOW for an audience of believers, put on by a professional
troupe of actors, in anticipation of not only paychecks, but bribes and
pay-offs as well. It has all been documented, for those who need to see
documentation. Google will provide! They HATE this internet and are
working on another...
> All that is, is.
That is so true! And who has seen it all? As we have seen, even what
ISN'T "is" in most Americans' minds.
> It is
> just that "all that is," is not what it seems,
The magic of show business! The power of marketing! And when good
people do nothing, evil people take advantage. "Whatever...it's ALL
good!"
> so most
> all of us remain unaware, and unaware of being
> unaware.
True again. My dog is rarely aware of her paw until she steps on a
thorn. You would think that people would get more upset than my dog
does over a thorn when in this Land of the Free they "pony up" around a
third of their productive capacity with no law having been discovered
and consciously complied with by them, or anyone else they know, but,
they still would say, "everybody knows you have to do that..."
> From my own limited experience, people that I talk to
> are not interested in the truth, for the truth is no
> longer recognizable. The "Lie" is too entrenched.
This is why we cannot wait for majorities to vote that our rights must
be respected. They don't have our rights on their minds because they
are living in a shared virtual reality. It has plausible deniability.
> Just my POV.
The best we can hope for is that both of our PsOV leave room for the
constitutions that are the only basis for anyone to try to exercise any
authority over us.
Meanwhile, my locals made the national news tonight in a story featuring
their incompetence. I love it. I will get many new photos for my
rogues gallery when I get it to my computer for editing.
They lost the evidence. Yeah, like there ever was any. Well, I guess
there COULD have been some, but they claimed to have lost it. The
stupid defendant never tried disqualifying anyone. He had an attorney.
Seize the day! Don't be the last Berliner to realize that the Wall is
DOWN!
Regards,
FF
I filed a discovery lawsuit against the IRS in the Southern District Court of
Texas. One of the forms I requested is the 23C form. In one of the FOIA request
the disclosure officer replied that IRS does not use 23C form anyway. At the
preliminary trial conference the US State attorney relied on that disclosure officer's
stand. Does anybody knows if there's truth to this.
Thanks,
Pepe Simborio Houston, Texas
Pete, I have heard, (have it somewhere in my 12 gigs of data I have saved off the interent) that while the IRS Indeed, nolonger uses the 23C, the treasury regulation that requries it, is still in effect.
I will see if I can find it and will post it to the group..
So my suggestion is that you look thru the treasury regulations and find the one that requires it. If its true that the regulation is still in effect, that is your argument - that they have failed to follow treasury regulations and procedures.
hello iam from india a law student.
actually the remedy is to have stict note on her and putting her in
a juvinile home. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PUNISHMENT BUT TO SAVE OTHERS
AND ALSO TO HAVE AA GOOD FUTURE IT SHOULD BE DONE.AS PER OUR INDIAN
LAW MINORS ARE EXEMPTED IN CERTAIN ACTS BUT THEY CAN ALSO BE
PROCECUTED AND THE PUNISHMENTS GIVEN TO THEM IS SPENDING LIFE IN
JUVINILE HOME TIL THEY ATTAIN MAJOR.IN THIS CASE I HAVE PRESCRIBED
TO PUT HER IN A JUVINILE HOME OR SOME HOME WHERE SHE CAN BE THOUGHT
OF CULTURE AS WELL AS THE IMPORTANCE OF LIFE.SHE SHOULD BE THOUGHT
THAT SEX IS PART OF OUR AND IT DOES'NT FORMS THE MAIN.GIVE SOME
MEDICAL TREATMENTS ALSO.SOCIAL WORK MAY BE THERE BUT TO HAVE A GOOD
SATISFACTION TRY IT.AS SHE IS A MINOR AND IN THE AGE OF INNOCENSEIT
IS ADVISABLE TO ASSAULT HER OR BATTERING HER.BEFORE SOMEONE GOES TO
POLICE OR COMPLINING TO OTHERS TAKE A DECISION AS SOON AS POSIBLE.
WITH REGARDS
FROM,
SINCERLY
V.SUBHA
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Nikki" <princess071979@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi, First I'd like to say that I am thankful for any information
> anyone can give me on this subject. I'd also like to mention that
I
> am in the state of Arkansas just for general reference.
>
> I found out a few days ago that my 5 year old daughter has been
being
> molested/raped by a 12 year old. This was found out at her school
on
> Monday as she was playing with a boy in her class, they were
playing
> cops and she stuck her hand up his pant leg. She went to the
> principals office where she was questioned as to why she did
this. I
Hey Pepe
The IRS cannot create a form 23-C except where lawful taxes are
assessed. For that reason no 23-C nor called a "summary record of
assessments", was created in your case. You must however demand that the
origional Summary Record of Assessment be brought into the court and
entered into record (Federal Rules of Procedure 1002 Best evidence rule)
and being it is a business record it must be admitted by a person who
has personal knowledge of the creation of that document.(FRCP 803 (6).
If they cannot produce the origional Summary Record of Assessments (not
a 4340) of Summary Record of Assessments and Payments there is no
competent relevant evidence against you.
Are you represented by an attorney?
Infreedom
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of macwildstar
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:35 AM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] 23C Form
----- Original Message -----
From: pepe simborio <mailto:pepe39@...>
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:46 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] 23C Form
I filed a discovery lawsuit against the IRS in the Southern District
Court of
Texas. One of the forms I requested is the 23C form. In one of the FOIA
request
the disclosure officer replied that IRS does not use 23C form anyway. At
the
preliminary trial conference the US State attorney relied on that
disclosure officer's
stand. Does anybody knows if there's truth to this.
Thanks,
Pepe Simborio
Houston, Texas
_____
Here is what I use for proof of 23C :
Dear Disclosure Officer:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, or
regulations thereunder. This is my firm promise to pay fees and costs
for locating and duplicating the records requested below, ultimately
determined in accordance with 26 CFR 601.702 (f).
If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish me with
those portions reasonably segregable. I am waiving personal inspection
of the requested records.
*_BACKGROUND_*: See Exhibit A - Department of Treasury Internal Revenue
Manual 5300, Balance Due Account Procedures at 2 of 2 section 5312(1)
very clearly tells us that the IRS Form 23-C is the Assessment
Certificate and this record through supporting data, provides
identification of the taxpayer by name and number, the taxable period,
the nature of the tax, and the amount assessed. At section 5312(2) the
assessment is the date that the Form 23-C is signed by the assessment
officer. See Exhibit B - IRM 3(17)(63)(14).1(2), All tax assessments
must be recorded on Form 23-C Assessment Certificate. The Assessment
Certificate must be signed by the Assessment Officer and dated. The
Assessment Certificate is the legal document that permits collection
activity. See Exhibit C - IRM 3.17.63.14.7 (10-01-2000) Account 6120
Individual Income Tax Assessments. Principal at paragraph (2) - All
principal assessments must be recorded on Summary Record of Assessments
(Assessment Certificate). The Assessment Certificate is the legal
document that permits collection activity. See Exhibit D - Meyersdale
Fuel Co. v. United States 44F.(2d) 437 in the second column at the
middle arrow again show the 23-C Assessment. See Exhibit E -blank 23-C
Assessment Certificate. See Exhibit F - Filled out 23-C Assessment
Certificate. See Exhibit G - RACS 006 Report.
_NOTE_: I am not requesting RACS 006 report.
See _Exhibit H_ - GAO/T - AIMD - 96 - 56 clearly tells us at page 2 of 3
that IRS' financial statement amounts for revenue in total and by type
of tax were not derived from it's revenue general ledger accounting
system (RACS), or its master files of detailed individual taxpayer
records. RACS does not contain detailed information by type of tax such
as individual income tax, or corporate tax. The master file cannot
summarize the taxpayer information needed to support the amounts
identified in RACS. As a result, IRS relied on alternative sources, such
as Treasury Schedules, to obtain the summary total by type of tax needed
for its financial statement presentation
IRS asserts that the Treasury amounts were derived from IRS records;
however, neither IRS or Treasury's records maintained any detailed
information that could be tested to verify the accuracy of the figures.
_NOTE_: I am not requesting for Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments
and Payments.
See _Exhibit I_ - Form 4340, simply a worksheet which can be created at
any time and relies upon the 23-C Assessment Certificate. A Form 4340 is
created after a 23-C and must be supported by other documents
NOTE: I have read Handbook 1.3, Disclosure of Official Information,
Chapter 13, Freedom of Information Act.
See _Exhibit J_ - (1.3)13.5.6 (08-31-2000) paragraph 4.B and paragraph
7. This is how I'm requesting this information.
NOTE: I have read Handbook 1.3, Disclosure of Official Information,
Chapter 13, Freedom of Information Act.
See Exhibit K - (1.3)13.3.7 (08-19-1998) which had to be rewritten to
conform with RRA98. I have read the complete section concerning 23-C
Assessment Certificate
Moderator/Bear: The exhibits that go with this FOIA are available as part of my
Killer FOIA Requests package available at
http://freedivorceforms.net/htdocs/www.irs-armory.com/killer_foias.htm. Note:
Copy and paste this link into your browser or it most likely will not work. DO
NO write to the group to tell anyone...even me...that this link does not work.
You might write this emails author off group if you feel you must. If the link
does not work, simply run a Google search using the information you have to
locate the page. Thanks.
This request pertains to the years: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
1. Please send a certified copy of the Record of Assessment Form 23C
which is specific to the above referenced Account # and requester
and no other and which indicates the alleged liability. Any
questions regarding exactly what I am requesting should be
directed in writing to above address
2. Please NOTE: I am not asking for a 006 RACS report or Form 4340.
3. Please certify all documents with the Form 2866, certificate of
official record. If there are no specific documents pertaining to
this request, certify your response with Form 3050, certificate of
lack of records.
Respectfully,
macwildstar wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* pepe simborio <mailto:pepe39@...>
> *To:* tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:46 PM
> *Subject:* [tips_and_tricks] 23C Form
>
> I filed a discovery lawsuit against the IRS in the Southern
> District Court of
> Texas. One of the forms I requested is the 23C form. In one of the
> FOIA request
> the disclosure officer replied that IRS does not use 23C form
> anyway. At the
> preliminary trial conference the US State attorney relied on that
> disclosure officer's
> stand. Does anybody knows if there's truth to this.
> Thanks,
>
>
> Pepe Simborio
> Houston, Texas
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Pete, I have heard, (have it somewhere in my 12 gigs of data I have
> saved off the interent) that while the IRS Indeed, nolonger uses the
> 23C, the treasury regulation that requries it, is still in effect.
> I will see if I can find it and will post it to the group..
>
> So my suggestion is that you look thru the treasury regulations and
> find the one that requires it. If its true that the regulation is
> still in effect, that is your argument - that they have failed to
> follow treasury regulations and procedures.
>
>
>
Send Email
