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

19667Re: [tips_and_tricks] File - Reading List 4 Book Reports.txt

Expand Messages
  • Jane
    Jul 2, 2014
      Yes they are doing the same thing in Idaho. Laundering fees and fines through the General Fund and into the Judges Retirement Fund.
      Lots of driving without privileges!.
       
      They passed a new Senior judge code in 2012 upon approval of the IRS and I have it confirmed that the IRS did not approve the new code yet it is still in place.
      Administrator of Courts says they know the code is unconstitutional but no one has challenged it yet.
      26.00 into the retirement fund for everyone who appears for every hearing, motion, action in front of every judge including defense and prosecuting attorneys criminal, civil and appeal.
       
      After some research and investigating I discovered the same person who manages the Retirement fund “as if it was their own” as is written in the code.also manages the State wide insurance fund as if it were their own.
      It is a racketeering extortion insider trading no doubt and we all need to be taking them to task.
      I had a senior judge completely violate me as a judge tempore without proper assignment or appointment and without standing.
       
       
       
       
      Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] File - Reading List 4 Book Reports.txt
       
       

      Please check out my new playlist and forward it to other interested parties. I include the In Re Stork decision that created the 2 classes of persons using the roads, those in commerce, and those not. The former is declared to require a DL, the latter is not.
       
      At the end, I include a letter from a Captain Commander who confirms that in the State of California ONLY vehicles under CVC 260 (a) are regulated. CVC 260 (b) (c) are not regulated in California. This definition section clearly adheres to the Stork classification scheme.
       
      Furthermore, CVC section 4000 which purports to require licenses, etc, is under article 1. Vehicles subject to registration. Well that's only those defined in CVC 260 (a). I'll be using these things in my appeal. The courts seem to want to pretend this classification scheme. They presume that you are in the group requiring a license, even when there are no facts supporting such presumptions, and you spell out your non-commercial activities.
       
      This massive racket is protected because the judges in California are laundering fines and fees through the General Fund and into the Judges Retirement fund. This goes contrary to the California constitution which includes under the judiciary a section stating that no judicial officer shall keep any fines or fees.
       
      Again, please check out the updated playlist. These cases are important! Study them! Give comments and feedback on the videos. Thumbs up if you get something from it. And most of all share! We need people to learn about these never overturned cases!
       
       
       
  • Show all 91 messages in this topic