Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1590RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF ABSENCE OF

Expand Messages
  • Frank Taucher
    Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      hi bliss

      there's something along the lines of the consequences of failure to perform
      a duty

      one of the things you want to highlight is the difference between a
      discretionary duty (deciding) and a ministerial one (executing a defined

      providing the requested documents would seem to be a ministerial duty

      notice them of such with an affidavit attesting as to what's happened so far
      and give them 10 days to perform their duty and correct the injury they've
      done to you

      if they still don't perform, record the completed package and then take the
      record and file for a writ of mandamus and for forfeiture of office for
      their lawless activity


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bliss Alexandra [mailto:abliss@...]
      Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 09:15 AM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF

      i have a request in for certification of the ABSENCE of commission of dmv

      and relatedly an absence of bonds waiver by ny comptroller for ny officers

      because these requests are for evidence quality certifications

      the FOI officers have steadfastly refused to produce them

      the FOI appeals officers are attorneys

      this is where these requests are now


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Frank Taucher [mailto:taucher@...]
      Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 9:50 PM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed

      hi frog farmer

      i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
      to me

      i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

      maybe not

      i complained to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded

      with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
      they're the merrill and ryder cases

      didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
      handle your confrontations

      i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
      original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
      document along with notice

      but am always open to better ideas

      as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
      etc., i don't disagree


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
      Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 02:38 PM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed

      Frank Taucher wrote:

      > hi frog farmer
      > good to see you hangin' around again
      > i agree with you on the psq

      Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
      eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I
      quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
      Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =

      > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
      > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
      > conducts his court

      That's what I figure. I mean, there's no way I can know all
      my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
      do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
      things in this relatively new legal environment. If they
      make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
      it's a legitimate one or not. In fact, I think there's even
      a U.S. Supreme court case that says so. Dang Me! I don't
      remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
      matter anyway. Giving court citations presumes the ability
      of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
      tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
      the law.

      > it is thus where the record is established which is
      > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
      > should there be any

      Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted. Most
      people cannot comprehend that. Most make all kinds of
      unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
      their own detriment.

      > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
      > and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
      > informed that any further proceedings without bona
      > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
      > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
      > authority

      So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
      too much of a "hassle" for most people. And most people do
      not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
      convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
      political question. They don't know what they think without
      a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
      they are silent.

      > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
      > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
      > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
      > the matter)

      Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
      disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
      had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
      evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
      initial contact.

      What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
      the initial confrontation? Don't they realize that failure
      to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
      to undo later?

      > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
      > before the hearing

      Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
      because the legitimate players are absent. One can PRETEND
      to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
      than facing reality.

      > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
      > into the record is the correct course of action

      Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly! Then I'd
      agree with you wholeheartedly!

      > return of the charging instrument would have also been
      > appropriate had it been timely performed

      Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
      right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
      not overlook abnormalities).

      > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
      > record and return the instrument than not, imho

      Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
      with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
      mail service. So what am I to do? Personally, I don't
      think things will be corrected in my own lifetime. I'm not
      trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
      the people I meet. Every year the level of literacy declines.

      > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
      > or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
      > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
      > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

      I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
      I do keep my own records. But down at the office buildings
      that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
      has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
      prop for the believers/audience. It's very similar to the
      situation in the old Soviet Union. When that government
      collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
      were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
      figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

      I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
      here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
      than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
      (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
      in relative peace.

      They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

      And we all smile at each other on the streets.

      I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
      yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
      Listmanager" stating:

      Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by

      Your message was not accepted for distribution.


      What's the story on posting here?

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic