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

8900Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Jul 6 1:36 PM
      On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:48 AM, The Handyman wrote:

      > I signed the summons to appear with reservation of rights UCC-1-207.

      The problem is, there is no section 1-207. So this lets them know that
      you are using citations without having looked at them yourself. Also,
      the UCC was a piece of "model legislation" that was subsequently
      adopted by each state and codified under each state's laws, so that in
      California, when one wishes to use a section from the UCC model, one
      looks up its counterpart in the California Commercial Code to make sure
      that the number and wording is still the same, and then one cites the
      CCC, not the UCC. The numbers and wording are not always the same.
      The UCC section you might want is now 1-308. Cute, eh?

      Also, I cannot think of a reason to sign a summons, unless it is part
      of a promise to appear, which is a separate contract. One does not
      need to promise to appear. If they really have authority to try you,
      they can arrest you without any consent on your part. So I am a little
      confused as to what you really signed. The last summons I got said
      that if I did not appear, I may be arrested. I said to myself, "that
      means I may NOT be arrested", so I waited to be arrested and they never
      did it.

      If you knew they had no jurisdiction (I don't know if they did or did
      not) why would you sign anything?

      > I then  rejected  their offer to contract for subject matter
      > jurisdiction within three days by letter as Rice McCloud does.  Months
      > went by and the sheriff finally served me to appear for an
      > arraignment. 

      I don't know about Rice McCloud. I would have required them to arrest
      me if I knew they had no jurisdiction. They then have 72 hours to
      arraign me, and 30 days to get me to trial if I don't bail out.
      Bailing out grants jurisdiction. Even if I did grant jurisdiction,
      they'd have to commence trial within 45 days unless I was to make
      another waiver of rights.

      > The arraignment was not held...it was rescheduled.

      This is why I'd force them to arrest me. They cannot play games like
      that when no rights are waived. I'm wondering why you signed anything,
      and why you appeared voluntarily when you said they had no

      > I appeared a second time and the ad hoc took control and refused to
      > answer any questions. 

      Maybe they felt they had you after you made two general appearances
      (which grant jurisdiction).

      > Told him I had never been arraigned and he claims he arraign me by
      > entering a plea on my behalf.  I objected and that was it. 

      When you make an objection, it has to have substance behind it (the
      lawful reason for it). Just objecting with no stated reason is not an
      objection. What was the reason you gave while objecting? If there was
      none, maybe he thought you were being frivolous and refusing to plead.

      I would have taken him through the steps of the arraignment process and
      asked him how he performed each one, or better yet, stating on the
      record that he failed to perform each one. One does not arraign by
      entering a plea for someone. One enters a plea for someone as part of
      the late stages of an arraignment in which the accused refuses to make
      a plea. It becomes time to enter a plea only after certain other parts
      of the arraignment are completed. Maybe you need transcripts of the
      arraignment, for later evidence. The evidence should show you
      objecting for specific reasons, such as the failure to do A,B, and C.

      > I was subpoenaed to a motion hearing and tried to ask the judge (sic)
      > things about his oath and the setting of the court but he got violent
      > and said to proceed with motions.  I refused to ask him anything about
      > motions and the hearing was concluded. 

      One who challenges jurisdiction has no use for motions, since they
      themselves grant jurisdiction to make a judicial decision. Did the
      subpoena say that you may be arrested if you failed to appear?

      > Thus far I've not been arraigned nor asked the judge to do anything. 
      > Trial is set for August and today I got a certified copy of everyone's
      > oath ........and they conform to what the state requires.

      Really? Too bad. I know that some states still have people under
      proper oaths. Even California has a few still alive.

      >   Now, (please don't get upset, I'm a slow learner) what do I do with
      > these certified oaths? 

      Keep them for reference, but if they conform, they conform and there's
      not much to do with them after you see that. Here, they do not
      conform. Here, they are proof that the person failed to take the
      required oath.

      > How do I challenge them at trial? 

      What is to challenge if they conform??

      > Trial is August 30.  If all fails should I participate?  Marc Steven
      > does participate[pate and disqualifies/impeaches the cop's testimony
      > as well as show the court that there is no complaining party.  Claims
      > his method always works and there is no trial.

      If I were you, I'd be researching your local laws to see how all of the
      steps of a prosecution are performed, and look for places where they
      deviated from the proper procedures. Like I've said before, here I've
      identified over 100 steps to go through in a case from start to finish.
      They build upon each other, some laying foundation for later steps.
      Even if the people here were proven to have the right oaths (and there
      may still be a few left) they still have to do the rest of it right as
      well. Here, they cannot complete arraignment without the cooperation
      of the accused, whom they rely upon not to know the steps that are
      required. Arraignment is well-defined and it is easy to see if they do
      it right or not. Is it well-defined in Louisiana?

      When I was in court, they kept showing up ready for trial, and I kept
      taking them back to the arraignment every time, twice I did it nine
      times in nine hearings in nine months. They finally gave up because of
      my right to a speedy trial in both "cases" (they weren't really cases,
      which was why there couldn't be a real arraignment!)

      > Please give me three question to ask about the oath. 

      When I have certified evidence that they did not take the required
      oath, I'd ask, "is this the oath of office you signed?" They'd say
      "yes". I then would ask, "did you sign any other oath?" Our
      constitution specifies "and no other oath". I might then ask, "how do
      you explain that the required oath contains so many words, and yet the
      oath you signed contains far fewer words? Did you fail to read the
      words in the constitution saying "no other oath"? What made you decide
      to take this other non-authorized oath? Was this your idea, or did
      someone else put you up to it? How long have you been impersonating
      an officer?"

      > I am sincerely interested and would like to avoid an appeal.

      Actually, if you are going into a real court in a real case, and you
      want to win, you want to do everything from the point of view that you
      will be taking an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, so you first
      have to qualify your case under the Ashwander Rules, see the case
      Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority. I don't have the cite handy.
      See if any of those 7 rules will knock your case out.

      Since you failed to invoke and conduct your own case in the "one
      supreme Court" mentioned in the Constitution - (Google "James Alan
      Daum"), you may have to settle for the court mourning over the loss of
      Sandra O'Conner. JAD says he got inspiration from some of my earliest
      writings on the web back in the 80's. He thinks more like me than
      anyone else I've seen yet, although there are a handful I readily can
      agree with, with regards to being sovereign over servants. With my own
      brain damage due to a triple skull fracture, I have to say that he has
      gone beyond anywhere I've ever been or can get to with regards to the
      formalities of using the one supreme Court. I've always done it
      instinctively without knowing how, but he does it consciously, knowing
      how and why he does things he does. He went forward where I left off.
      Is there time to learn how to govern your own government before August?
      Probably not, but this case might provide an impetus to be more ready
      for the next one. There is always a next one.

      Today, JAD and I seem to have a disagreement as to the status of the
      entity involved, and the significance and effects of certain historical
      facts of the 1860's. I am trying my best to learn from him because his
      writings can be even more cryptic than my own. It seems like he is the
      extension of where I'd be if my head hadn't been smashed with 7 blows
      of a large tire iron. When I read what he writes, I think that I do
      what he does but more simply without more work, and with different
      relations between the entities involved but also without more evidence
      for others to see and learn from. I used to put a lot more effort into
      trying to share ideas with people. There's a phrase, "shoveling s***
      against the tide." But then again there veins of gold amid mountains
      of granite. That's why I participate here but not on my own website
      (which was hacked and destroyed) while I no longer have the time for
      private correspondence.

      Appeals are only taken on issues raised by objections that were
      improperly overruled, so you will want to learn how to make proper
      objections that will get into the record. Your law library may have a
      book on trial objections. There are over 20 that you may wish to use.
      You have to know them to be able to use them, since "I object!" alone
      does not identify either the object or the cause of your objection.

      I'd try to make a list of all the things that have to happen before
      anyone gets to object to anything done by anyone.

      From the sound of it, seeing now that you have given your signature
      (under what we do not know) and have a postponed trial date (that you
      sound like you'd be walking into) jurisdiction as an issue may now be

      Every action they take has to have foundation in the law. The law
      should be requiring them to perform specifically. Your job is to see
      where they drop the ball and then call them on it, and do not permit
      them to judge their own behavior. You should be getting familiar with
      procedures to disqualify judges, and others, which is done BEFORE
      trial. But just as JAD and I may not react the same in all cases, we
      do what we need to do to avoid waiving any rights for any cause or
      reason. You DO have the right to do that!


    • Show all 19 messages in this topic