http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when
it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court
has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss
the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion
to ignore  that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond
v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the record, all
jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp
150. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a
proceedings  of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and
its judgment therein without effect either on person or
property. " Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini,
49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered
by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab
initio."  In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118
P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of
the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings
are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."  Dillon
v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine
its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a
tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the
authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue
Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331  US 549,
91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from
those recognized and established requirements of law, however
close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure,
which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right,
is an excess of jurisdiction. " Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934,
937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to
denial of due  process of law, court is deprived of juris. "
Merritt v. Hunter, C.A.  Kansas 170 F2d 739.  "the fact that the
petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a
magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be
considered in determining whether in first instance there was a
probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963,
221 F Supp 685.

And, you may find this interesting as well:

"An action by  Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly
or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing
officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has
subject matter jurisdiction, without such  jurisdiction of the
licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents,
hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125  US
618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. "Agency,  or party sitting
for the agency,  (which would be the magistrate of a municipal
court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he
is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in
nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is
not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within
a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do
the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a
contract. " Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. "When acting to
enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present
date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an
administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in
administering or  enforcing' statutes do not act judicially, but
merely   ministerially"'. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A
judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing
principle of administrative law provides that courts are
prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record,
arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally,
courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that
of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited
from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or
rational. " ASIS  v.   US, 568 F2d 284.  "Ministerial officers
are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such  powers
are necessarily nullities. " Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
"The  elementary  doctrine  that  the  constitutionality  of  a
legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights
are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to
administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called
into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm,
actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly
resulting from the enforcement of the statute. " Board of Trade
v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.

Lawyerdude says, in response to my questions about Ex Parte: Other side has right to be there "almost" all the time.

I ask: What about the other times?

Sometimes a Party is entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law and there simply is no "other side".

A good example is my "Ex Parte Petiton for Expunction" of the arrest record. There is NO defendant (other side). It is strictly a question of whether or not my Petition satisfies the requirements of the Statute. The duty of the Judge is to determine if I did or not.

But Attorneys from the District Attorneys Office show up and try to muscle the Judge to deny the Petition. What 'jurisdiction' or authority do they have to be there?

I'd hired an attorney to do the expunction. She didn't raise this issue. She argued against them and they lost. The expunction was granted.

But then the Office of the District Attorney appeals. By then I was broke and had to do the appeal myself.

Quo Warranto - by what authority - are Attorneys from the Office of the DA appealing? This Office is not even the subunit of government that keeps the arrest records. There is nothing in the Constitution or Statutes that gives the DA Office a function to be involved. That's the point I'm trying to make about "Ex Parte" Petitions. I'm now in a similar situation with the Offic of the Attorney General for the State. Can I file a Ex Parte Motion or Ex Parte Quo Warrento showing their lack of jurisdiction?

My point is that the Office of the AG would not even have authority to contest the Quo Warranto.

These Assistant AG's show up and use the political clout and prestige of their Office to secure collusion from the Judges to delay the Remedy that is due me as a Matter of Law. I'm trying to find a way to put an end to their barratry.

Thanks, Ed44
Ed
www.informed.org <http://www.informed.org>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw

CONTINUOUS LEVIES IN EXCESS OF 15% ALLOWED BY LAW

The IRS creates and enforces unlawful continuous levies against
taxpayers pensions and salaries in excess of 15% allowed by law.
Simply stated section 6334 (a)(9) provides for the minimum exemption
for wages, salary, and other income, while section 6331 (h)(1) and (2)
(B) provide for the maximum limitations for wages, salary, and other
income.  Both statutory requirements must be in compliance.

Link to 26 USC 6331

Link to 26 USC 6334

www.tpirsrelief.com


--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "bowman7a" <Bowman7a@y...>
wrote:
>
> Go to the URL that is posted in this message
>
>   6.7 Affidavit of Exemption from Withholding in Lieu of W-4
>
> http://www.familyguardian.tzo.com/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr.htm

On September 16, 2003, at a press conference held at the Treasury
Department, a New York Times reporter asked why the I.R.S. has not
answered, in writing, the questions contained in the Petition for
Redress. According to the New York Times, an I.R.S. senior spokesman
(Terry L. Lemons) said that the recent spate of enforcement actions
taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of abusive tax schemes, and the
new agreement with the states, show ways that government is answering
the petition.

http://www.connectlive.com/events/treasury/



--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Bowman7a <Bowman7a@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> 9-27-03
>
>
> Tell IRS To "Drop Dead"
> Lemons' Response Last Straw
>
> Watch as IRS Commissioner Everson & Officials
> Evade & Obfuscate the Truth
>
> For many months, Americans caught up in resisting the IRS's income
tax fraud have contacted WTP for direct legal assistance and advice.
As you know, WTP's primary mission is education and facilitating
citizen vigilance and activism.  It does not include providing
specific, individual assistance on tax or legal matters.
>
> However, after last Tuesday's "Enforcement, rather than Answers"
insulting retort from IRS' Terry Lemons to David Cay Johnston of the
New York Times, WTP is now offering advice worthy to be followed by
all People contacted by the IRS or their state tax collector, looking
for money directly or indirectly related to Subtitle A or C of the
Internal Revenue Code.
>
> Below is a memorandum from Bob Schulz that is now being sent to
anyone who contacts WTP for such help.  It announces that WTP
Congress has just released a (template) letter that can be sent to
the IRS and/or State tax collectors in response to their attempts to
unlawfully enforce the income tax code.
> (continued...)
>
> Click Here to Read the Full Article
>
>
>
>
> www.GiveMeLiberty.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

ok, after much deliberation, here's what i've come up with and i'm posting
so you can see..

i had posted questions regarding a lawsuit that contained a corporation and
a person as the defendant and counter-plaintiff, and now the corporation is
dissolved...

the person that is left is going to file the following;

Motion to Dismiss Corporation as a Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

based on the fact that all parties were advised that corporation was
included in bankruptcy, and dissolution and no challenge was made, therefore
there is no longer a claim afainst the corporation for which reliefe may be
granted and as such the case against the defendant corporation must be
dismissed.

patty.

_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments.  Get Hotmail
Extra Storage!   http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

My niece was fully stopped, and was patiently waiting to make a left
hand turn across traffic.  A driver in a truck was coming from the
opposite direction.  He and his other two companions were watching a
hooker, he was not paying attention to his line of travel.

In the process he had wandered to far to his left. By the time he had
seen the error of his judgement, I think he tried to swerve to miss
my niece who was at a full stop.  He hit my niece practically head on.

The three male occupants got out of the truck and started to approach
her in a threatening manner.  One of the three had some sort of
weapon his his hand.  She was alone and got frightened.  She managed
to drive her vehicle home, which was a few blocks away.  She then
called the police and told them what had transpired and why she left
the scene.  That she felt her life was in danger.  She has seen how
these college kids have busted windows and dented up cars in the
past

Granted she left the scene of the accident, but did so under special
circumstances, due to the threatening aggressive actions of
intimidation that the three occupants were directing towards her.
Because she left the scene of the accident they are trying to make
her the felon of this inccident.

About three years ago some college kids beat a homeless person to
death just for the fun of it.

What would be the best line of questioning that one should use to
turn the tables?

Patrick, have you considered a "credit counseling service" instead of
bankruptcy? They can negotiate for pennies on the dollar with your
creditors, stop the harassing phone calls & threats. Bankruptcy stays
on your credit report for 10 yrs. Some states have free services
readily available in the city you live in. Look in the yellow pages of
your phone directory. If you do indeed decide to bankrupt, if I were
you I would go for a Chapter 13 if it's a personal bankruptcy & a
Chapter 7 if corporate. This advice comes from personal Hell &
experience with this subject. Faye
________________________________________________________________________
> > ey y'all, what are your thoughts and feelings on bankruptcy? To do
> > or not to do? Does one become a "WARD" of the state if bankruptcy
> is
> > filed? If one is going to file bankruptcy do you reccomend having
> an
> > attorney do it or doing it pro se? Input appreciated as always!
> >
> > Gung-Ho,
> > Patrick
> >




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

The word "asshole" is not a word of specific generic exactitude. The word "asshole" when used to describe a physical portion of the human body is a void surrounded by the sphincter muscle. On the other hand, when used as a characterization of an individual, the term "asshole" denotes that the individual possesses some or all of the following characteristics: (a) His acts or omissions do not conform to a generally accepted pattern among a particular social group of which the individual using the characterization is a member; (b) A person who by his conduct causes derision to be heaped upon him by one or more persons; (c) A person whose conduct has attained the degree of contemptibility that it defies characterization by conventional language in the opinion of the person who uses this characterization; (d) A person generally considered by his peers to conduct himself in an offensive and irregular manner.

--Defendant intended, and Plaintiff and others understood Defendant to mean, that Plaintiff is an "asshole" within the meaning of colloquial characterization of an individual. In truth and in fact Plaintiff is an "asshole".

I received two such letters from D. Parizek
One for 2000 & the other for 2001 tax period.
I already sent a notarized affidavit agreeing to file form 1040 in
response to the CP-515 notice if they could refute my affidavit!

Do you have a response letter that I can modify or use?
If yes please contact me.
Mark

Dear Dessie Andrews (or Maria):

At some point in time, maybe soon, it will be important that you grow up and
abandon your sugar plum fantasies of "Debtor/Creditor" rights/remedies and
join your fellow American citizens in a struggle against the destruction of
their prescribed Form of Government.  In a Republican Form of Government (of
Laws), the agents of the government are required to en-force the Laws
adopted by the People, and to Refrain from committing acts (e.g.,
deprivations of Life, Liberty or Property) not authorized by the People.
Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran

A "Civil Right" is a Right to Demand Respect for inalienable and other
rights and to Demand A Remedy Provided by the Force of the Government.  If
the Remedy is sufficient, the Agents of Government will usually not Dare to
Violate the Right.  If the Remedy is inadequate, the Agents of Government
will usually Dare to violate the Right.  In other words, Civil Rights and
Remedies exist to restrain criminal deviance among agents of government and
among criminals in general.

Traditionally:  If you are a Slave, you have no Civil Rights (No Remedies),
and no rights which the Citizens or their Agents are bound to Respect except
which they may choose to confer upon you.  If you are a Citizen, you have
Equal Civil Rights.  If you are a slave, you have "inalienable rights" but
you have no adequate Civil Rights and Remedies to SECURE those rights.  If
you can read, then read the Declaration of Independence and you will notice
that Men Establish Governments "TO SECURE" inalienable rights by providing
Remedies (e.g., Courts) for redress of their violation.  A Right implies a
remedy.  If there is no remedy for the violation of a Right, it is no right
at all.

If you have "inalienable rights" but no Civil Rights, then there is nothing
by the conscience of others to prevent them from grabbing you and declaring
you to be their property.  That is what happened to 4 million black-skinned
humans with "inalienable rights" but no "civil rights."  Today, we call them
black "citizens" because our Constitution was amended (13th and 14th) to
extend to them "civil rights" equal to those of other (white) inhabitants of
this continent.

If you will foolishly disavow your "Civil Rights" (and the associated
Remedies), then the only rights you can expect to possess are those which
you can defend by the force of your own arms.  No one man is stronger than
criminally deviant agents of government who have the full machinery of the
government at their disposal.

If you are not interested in joining with your fellow citizens in DEMANDING
RESPECT FOR OUR COMMON CIVIL RIGHTS, then you are a part of the problem that
we face today; where the agents of our governments do not bother to read our
statutes, ignore the words of our constitutions, and do not fear the
consequences of violating our declared civil rights.  See Part 2 at
www.billstclair.com/ferran   In other words, you are either fighting with us
as a co-equal citizen, or you are fighting against us, as a parasite.  The
philosopher Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph
of evil is that good men do nothing."

If you are not FIGHTING FOR "CIVIL RIGHTS", THEN YOU DESERVE NO RIGHTS
WHATSOEVER.

If you seriously wish to live without "civil rights" then go to Rwanda or
Angola and declare yourself entitled to "inalienable rights" and tell the
thugs that run that country with machetes how precious and special you are.
If you wish to be a parasite in this country, enjoying the benefit of our
courts (such is it may be) without contributing anything not even your
citizen's duty of "voter registration" nor your equal share of taxes to pay
for the support of the state or federal Governments we established for out
"Common Defense" and to "Secure the Blessings" of Liberty, then you should
not be any more welcome here than the illegal immigrants who enter or remain
in this country in defiance of our People's laws. At least they want to vote
(to enslave you).  Be consistent, either be a responsible "citizen" and
demand respect for constitutional and statutory civil rights, or move to
another country and Renounce your American Citizenship.   Don't be a vile
parasite here. And do not be what is worse than a parasite, an Exploiter of
people's desperation or disgust.

I'm not saying that you have nothing to contribute to our society.  But, I
know you are in the business of selling "seminars" and other "information."
I know that you "typically charge $100.00 an hour to assist folks."  When
you go around promoting and peddling nonsense and gibberish to people who
instead need the Protection that Law (e.g., Constitutions and Statutes)
Provides, you are doing a private and a public DISservice.  These prescribed
Civil Rights were not cheaply bought.  They were paid for with the Blood of
Martyrs and of Patriots, mixed with the blood of many Traitors and Tyrants
along the way.

"[O]ur fathers were not absurd enough to put unlimited power in the hands of
the ruler and take away the protection of law from the rights of
individuals. [That course would not] 'secure the blessings of liberty to
themselves and their posterity.' (Preamble, US Constitution) They determined
that not one drop of the blood which had been shed on the other side of the
Atlantic, during seven centuries of contest with arbitrary power, should
sink into the ground; but the fruits of every popular victory should be
garnered up in this new government. Of all the great rights already won they
threw not an atom away. They went over Magna Charta, the Petition of Right,
the [English] Bill of Rights, and the rules of the common law, and whatever
was found there to favor individual liberty they carefully inserted in their
own system, improved by clearer expression, strengthened by heavier
sanctions, and extended by a more universal application. They put all those
provisions into the organic law, so that neither tyranny in the executive
[or judiciary], nor ... in the legislature, could change them without
destroying the government itself."
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281, 4 Wall. 2 (1866).
http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED over the Millennia to Produce the Form of
Government, Written Constitution, and definite Civil Rights which Americans
are entitled, in writing, to demand and to possess without fear of violation
by the agents of their present governments.  If Americans are not
intelligent enough to appreciate the value of those "civil rights", then
America has no future, and probably this whole species truly is the
Abomination that Satan has endeavored to finally Prove it is, and is doomed
to extinction within the next century.  America is God's LAST EXPERIMENT
with Humans.

Yet, God would prefer that Subversives (Sodomites) and Tyrants die by the
hundreds or thousands, or even the millions, than see his Whole People
renounce their Covenant with Him to provide his Children with the Equal
Protection of the LAW of the Land (i.e., civil rights).  You have to Choose
sides carefully.  You must either recognize your duty to God to Establish a
Human Government to Secure Inalienable Rights, by providing Equal Protection
of the Laws, or you disavow that duty.  You can't lead others into
disavowing their own duty without bringing condemnation down upon them and
upon yourself.

Choose Money, or Choose your Duty To God and Country.

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
www.billstclair.com/ferran

Message: 7
    Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:18:50 -0500
    From: "Dessie Andrews" <dessieandrews@...>
Subject: RE: Help re Police & Public Defender Misconduct

Sorry, Pete, I disagree.  You might move the case to the District Court
of Washington DC under diversity of citizenship, but if you file a 1983
action, you have invoked your civil rights.  Civil rights are
legislatively conferred rights.  Court cases (which I use only for
clues, not for cites) state that when the Congress confers a "right"
(I'd call it a trap), they don't have to provide a remedy.



An Oklahoma Supreme court case Clay v. Independent School District 935
P2d 294 is most enlightening on this issue.  It states that the debt is
created by status.  If you have civil rights, you are a 14th amendment
citizen and a DEBTOR.  You have no voice or remedy.  It also talks about
duty and obligation through GRANTS.  When you continue to plow forward,
carrying all the burdens of their entrapments, i.e., voter registration,
social security number, driver license, bank signature card, you have
proven by your actions you are 14th amendment.  If you go into court
under those circumstances, they will ignore you, as well they should.
If you have inalienable rights, you are entitled to stand on the
Constitution, if you have civil rights, you have a duty and obligation
to pay whatever they tax.  Know who you are and act accordingly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Grzeskowiak [mailto:petesfarmftg@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:08 AM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Help re Police & Public Defender
Misconduct

  Sorry for not deleting but under US S Sct decison in Johnson V zerbst if
the St, Judge or prosecotor interfers with your 6th amend right to
counsel, amy conviction is null & void as the court has LOST
jurisdiction & it has been decided public pretender asct under color of
law, so I would think Johnson v Zerbst would also apply in this manner &
if the alleged bottom feeder refuses to discuss disclose trial stategy,
this is not acting in your best interests & is a fraud upon your 6th
amend & a fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice & denial of due
process, file a 1983 on your alleged bottom feeder & also remove this
action (fraud) from state to federal ct & see if they still wish toplay
games. Call  fed Ct & ask for civil cover sheet & if you have no $ file
IFP< ask for IFP form & remove from st to fed ct & state you cannot get
you inalienable rights as a US Citizen in the St Ct & as always {[F T
G]}   Why do we have to kepp on beating this dead horse, Gov't by & for
the people. I have a river I wish to sell You & all bridges are included
in the sale, asexually reporuduce this gov't & thought for the day-where
are all the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction???  70 billion to sart,
then another 83 billion, I firmly believe this money would better serve
Americans-not killing American soldiers, Why, WHY W H Y do so many
countries hate the amerikan Gov't - just a self serving glorified form
of welfare that is above the LAW F'em all  FTG

That is pretty much in line with what I suggested when you posted the
origional question.  The entire mess hinged oh what was done at the
creditors hearing and in the Bankruptcy proceeding.  The only thing
that the person that is trying to sue could attempt is to pierce the
coporate veil.
John

From: A. Person

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 2:30 PM

 

Patrick, have you considered a "credit counseling service" instead of
bankruptcy? They can negotiate for pennies on the dollar with your
creditors, stop the harassing phone calls & threats. Bankruptcy stays
on your credit report for 10 yrs. Some states have free services
readily available in the city you live in. Look in the yellow pages of
your phone directory. If you do indeed decide to bankrupt, if I were
you I would go for a Chapter 13 if it's a personal bankruptcy & a
Chapter 7 if corporate. This advice comes from personal Hell &
experience with this subject. Faye

Hi Mark,
   Mr. Parizek is a wonderful man.  He sends out more letters than
Santa Clause receives at the North Pole.  The only problem is that
most folks are not too pleased to recieve mail from Parizek.  But do
not distress there are very simple things you can do.  All Parizek
wants is a way to balance his books.  You can comply very easily by
complying with his wishes.
    Im going to make the assumption that you were born in this country
live in this country - and recieve the money you make from working in
this country.  I am only refering to money you make working for a
living in this country.  This is what I would do and since you are
getting mail from an alledged government agency you need to get a
move on.
    These things can all be done at the same time however they all
must travel under seperate return receipt cover.
     First, ask for an office interview.  Read the regulations under
part 601.105 and you will see that you have the right at the
examinations level to request this hearing.  This is the ONLY hearing
that the IRS will have to bear the burden of proof that you owe a tax
and If they grant you one it will be the first one in the country.
When they do not grant you this hearing you have been denied your
administrative due process, you have been denied the ability to
create a record, and you have the absolute right to have the matter
remanded back to the examination level once this matter moves farther
into the collections procedures.
      Second,  Give the government what they want.  Report your total
income to them including what was withheld from you in any taxes
including SS and Medicare.  Now this next statement comes under the
heading of my interpertation of the law.  You will have to study the
law and decide for yourself - or you could just include the request
with your report to the IRS - Just ask them for the law that would
require you to file a IRS Form 1040.  There are lots of regulations
that require the filing of the 1040.  However, I cannot find one that
indicates that a citizen of the United States is given any notice by
the Secretary of the Treasury in any of the Regulations he has
published that a 1040 is required of a citizen of this country
working in this courty and recieving the payments in this country.
When you start reading the regs you must first read the definition
of "individual" at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3).  You will see that the
definition is not restricted in its use to any particular part so it
must be good for the entire title 26.  You will see that
an "individual" is an alien of either the resident or non-resident
flavor.  With that in mind you will find regulations that are
specifically written with a "citizen of the United States" in mind.
Each on of them starts with the phrase "in the case of a citizen of
the United States."  You can bet your ass that the regulation applys
to YOU if you are that citizen.
      My position is pretty simple.  I am not an "individual" as
defined, therefore, I cannot complete a Form 1040.  The jurat at the
bottom of the form is also a Declaration.  It simply says "I Declare
under penalties of purjury ..."  So when you sign this form you are
simply making a declaration that you are an "individual."  I cannot
sign on of those forms for the simple reason that submitting a false
document to the Federal Government has a greater penalty than failing
to file a tax form.  I have not discovered any tax doucuments that a
citizen of the United States is reguired to file unless he is working
in a possession of the United States for over a year and then returns
to this country and works for a while.
     The regulations say you must report your total income.  So just
do it.  You need to give the IRS all the information they need to
compute any tax that they might have.  So be sure you tell them All
about where you were born - where you live - where the money was
received [what state did you get paid in] and who your employer is
and what laws they are operating under.  Usually what state they were
incorporated under is fine.  Then in the event that you do owe a tax
the government can tell you which regulation and statute causes you
to owe a tax.  I have looked for years and just cannot find one.  I
have asked the IRS every year when I send in my report and they have
not mentioned one either.  So, I have to operate under the good faith
of the government that the law means what it says and individuals are
truly aliens and there are no laws that require a citizen of this
country to owe or be liable for a tax on his constitutional right to
earn a living.
     So in a nut shell - ask for an office examination [be specific]
and report your total income.  One other thing you need to do is to
check out the statutory deductions concerning the defintion
of "wages" at 26 USC 3401 (a))(8)(A)(i).  When you get finished
reading it you will be confused.  Read it again and again until you
completly understand what it means and says.  My understanding of the
exemption is simple - First you need to check out section 911.
Section 911 is the laws that govern foreign earned income.  So with
that in mind the law says to me that - if your a citizen of the
United States and NOT a government employee and the money you recive
from working for a living can reasonabley be expected to be exempt
from the foreign earned income laws THEN the money you recieve for
working cannot be included in the definition of wages.  You read it
and see what you come up with.  After all when all this shakes down
only YOU can explain your actions.
     What Mr. Parizek is operating on is the information the your
employer sent to the IRS saying you made wages. Wages are taxable and
you have not rebuted the presumption that the IRS has made.  They
only have one piece of paper and they will stand by it until you
informe them that their information is false.  You can do that in
your Statement/Return when you report your total earnings.  You have
not informed the IRS of the particular circumstances and facts about
your status and the status of the money you recived.  Presumptions
can be dangerous if not rebutted.  You must do this in your Statement
to them otherwise how will they know your employer is supplying
incorrect information.
Well hope this helps.  And remember - Its YOU that must explain why
you did what you did so LEARN what the law says.  Only what is says
is law.  Dont read anything into the plain language of the law.  Law
cannot be presumed.
John

I would use the law of necessity.  The law of necessity is like self
defense.  For example its illegal to kill somebody but if you kill
them in defense of your own life its under the law of necessity.
Breaking and entering is against the law, but if you break into a
house to keep from freezing to death then there is no crime.  Most
folks arnt aware of this basic legal maxim.  The maxim says that the
law of necessity laughs at statutes.  So if your daughter felt
threatned in any way when those guys got out of their vehicle with
weapons in hand then they showed intent to harm.  All she did was
respond under the law of necessity and flee to a safe place.  She did
not flee the sceen of the accident in an attempt to avoid
responsibility.  Her proof of that is the call to police to report
the incident.  If she was trying to avoid the accident she would not
have called.  More than likely the state must prove intent to evade
as one of the elements of such a charge.  Its obvous that they cannot
prove that essential element of the crime.  Study up on the essential
elements of that charge by consulting the Annotiated Statutes which
are probably in a local library or maybe you might have to go to a
law library in your state.  The annotiated statutes will give court
cases that show what all the elements that the state must prove to
get a conviction in this matter.  It will become obvious that the
state cannot make it stick.  Remember all states constitutions and
the federal constitution require that in any offense that can carry a
jail sentence MUST be by grand jury indictment.  When the DA sees
that this is going to be a knock down drag out case he will more than
likely drop the charges and go for a fine or something acceptable.
Be sure and let him know that you will demand a jury trial.  That
information charge that the DA wants to bring in front of a judge is
just so much bullshit.
John

I have asked this woman to tell me the facts in her case.
Several people relayed her plight to me but nobody relayed her
telephone number, fax, and/or email number - nor that of the court.
Rome was not built in a day and a cas does not get lost in a day.
In California we have the "Mardsen" motion to fire your lawyer.
Here is a Marsden motion for you.

http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5023.html


--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Julie Nowman <aipu2@y...>
wrote:

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/kunstler.html
Biography of William Kunstler who argued patriot theory before it
was trendy.

"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces
of the Crown. It may be frail; its room may shake; the wind may blow
through it; the storm may center; the rain may enter but the King of
England may not enter." William Pitt 1763

Obviously, you don't read the same case law I read.  "Status determines
the debt", for instance.  "Congress created rights don't have to be
accompanied by remedies".  A civil right is a Congressionally created
right, which is no right at all.  It is a benefit and a privilege.

Consider this, the United States can only punish 4 crimes, according to
the Constitution.  Treason, offenses against the Law of Nations, piracy
or crimes on the high seas and counterfeiting.

Do you really believe that the 60,000 cases the federal prosecutors
tried last year in the name of the U.S. concerned only these 4 offenses?
I hardly think so.  Their right to try drug offenses for instance comes
from the rights created under the 14th amendment.  Civil rights, civil
offenses.  If you would put the word Roman in front of those terms you
would have the picture.

I don't believe it is a matter of "growing up".  I am quite grown, thank
you.  Nor do I believe it necessary to slander another's point of view.
I know what I know, you know what you know.  Let's just say that I'm
puzzled because we have no "justice" in the courts and there has to be
an answer for that.  Those 4 million black people to whom you refer had
no rights in this country, inalienable or otherwise, they were
considered property and had as many rights as a chair.  When the 13th
and 14th amendments were passed, they were given man made rights,
privileges and benefits.  They were declared equal and I find that
offensive.

I am not racist and I don't even like the sound of any of that, because
it demeans blacks as equals.  But, that is the history of this nation.

I have natural rights and the common law which says, do no harm to
others or their property and honor all contracts. I do not embrace man
made rights, believing that the God in which I believe had dominion over
them.

I have studied all my life.  I quest after the truth.  Many times I
don't like the answers, but the truth is the truth.  The truth is:  If
you are of the class of people who has civil rights and not inalienable
rights, then you have duties and obligations to statutes which you MUST
obey.

If you are of the class of People who granted limited powers to a
restricted government, then you have inalienable rights and are
protected by them.  I don't need civil rights and they offer me no
remedy.   I have to choose one or the other, I can't have them both.  I
choose the ones offered by Tommy (Thomas Jefferson) and the boys, and I
follow the path laid out by them, not by the Federalists.

You do what you want.  I don't disparage you for your beliefs.  I might
suggest, that in the future you might appear to be not quite so petty if
you would simply state what you believe to be true and not attack or
slander someone else for what they believe to be true.

We all have our own perceptions of reality.  You leave me mine, and I'll
leave you yours.  And, oh, by the way, those agents of the government,
who you believe are so nicely enforcing a Republican government are not.
They are enforcing Roman civil law laid on this land, and theirs is a
democracy, not a republic.  Ask them.

And oh, yes, one more thing, Mark, one can not demand respect, one has
to earn it. And, they are not my statutes, there hasn't been a
Republican form of representation, duly elected, since 1860.  Those are
their statutes.  If you are of the class who is a United States citizen,
born or naturalized in the United States, then they are your statutes,
too.




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran [mailto:mferran@...]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:02 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Civil Rights Secure Inalienable Rights

Dear Dessie Andrews (or Maria):

Click to subscribe to Freedoms_Darkness_2

Click to subscribe to FreedomB4Dishonor

Please don't hold any ill will for the disagreement.  In red below

 

 

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

From: Dessie Andrews

Obviously, you don't read the same case law I read.  "Status determines
the debt", for instance.  "Congress created rights don't have to be
accompanied by remedies".  A civil right is a Congressionally created
right, which is no right at all.  It is a benefit and a privilege. 

Consider this, the United States can only punish 4 crimes, according to
the Constitution.  Treason, offenses against the Law of Nations, piracy
or crimes on the high seas and counterfeiting.

 

Congress can punish for piracies on the high seas, and violations of the laws of nations.  They can provide for the punishment of counterfeiting.  Treason is punishable by state courts.   Artice I Section 8.

 

Artiicle IV, Section 2

"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other crime......removed to the state having jurisdiction of the Crime."

 

Title 18 bears this our

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sec. 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
    against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
    comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..

 

The above apply to those who have taken an oath of office.

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

From: Dessie Andrews

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:31 AM

Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Civil Rights Secure Inalienable Rights

Obviously, you don't read the same case law I read.  "Status determines
the debt", for instance.  "Congress created rights don't have to be
accompanied by remedies".  A civil right is a Congressionally created
right, which is no right at all.  It is a benefit and a privilege. 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

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

From: James Alan Daum

To: ed44@yahoogroups.com ; James

Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:41 AM

Subject: Re: [ed44] Re: courts and latin

**Consider two such phrases used in the Constitution: habeas corpus and ex
post facto. Yes, you can try to express those concepts in alternate English,
but there are no short equivalents, and we must consider those Latin terms
to be English terms, because they have been incorporated into English.**

 

Consider ALSO that a liberal use of Latin can obscure the meaning of the law or at least confuse it.  Simple is better. 

So I don't confuse everyone, this email is in reference to a lawsuit
brought against me by Citibank Credit Card services, this is not
about my ADA claim against my former employer. Some of you are
already looking at the ADA suit.

I followed evryone's instructions, and sent Citibank a questionare
asking for original written document showing the agreement between
us. I also sent the Attorney a cease and desist letter. Today I
received this huge package from the Attorney asking for Plaintiff's
Admissions. A grand total of 13 admissions they want me to answer.
They also sent a copy of every CC bill I ever received from them as
exhibit A. They also sent a copy of the letter they sent me telling
me that they had been retained by Citibank as exhibit B.

So question #1. Why do they ignore the cease and desist?

2. How come there seems to be no effort on their part to come up with
the documents I asked for?

3. And what the hell do I do now?

Thanks,
Dave

Email me Bowman7a@....  Your just getting yourself in deeper

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

From: Dessie Andrews

To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:31 AM

Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Civil Rights Secure Inalienable Rights

Obviously, you don't read the same case law I read.  "Status determines
the debt", for instance.  "Congress created rights don't have to be
accompanied by remedies".  A civil right is a Congressionally created
right, which is no right at all.  It is a benefit and a privilege. 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

Patrick contact me privately keylaw@...


----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Person" <askseek@...>
To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Advice Gung Ho Patrick


> Patrick, have you considered a "credit counseling service" instead of
> bankruptcy? They can negotiate for pennies on the dollar with your
> creditors, stop the harassing phone calls & threats. Bankruptcy stays
> on your credit report for 10 yrs. Some states have free services
> readily available in the city you live in. Look in the yellow pages of
> your phone directory. If you do indeed decide to bankrupt, if I were
> you I would go for a Chapter 13 if it's a personal bankruptcy & a
> Chapter 7 if corporate. This advice comes from personal Hell &
> experience with this subject. Faye
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > > ey y'all, what are your thoughts and feelings on bankruptcy? To do
> > > or not to do? Does one become a "WARD" of the state if bankruptcy
> > is
> > > filed? If one is going to file bankruptcy do you reccomend having
> > an
> > > attorney do it or doing it pro se? Input appreciated as always!
> > >
> > > Gung-Ho,
> > > Patrick
> > >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>