8900Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides
- Jul 6, 2005On 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
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 matterI don't know about Rice McCloud. I would have required them to arrest
> jurisdiction within three days by letter as Rice McCloud does. Months
> went by and the sheriff finally served me to appear for an
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 toMaybe they felt they had you after you made two general appearances
> answer any questions.
(which grant jurisdiction).
> Told him I had never been arraigned and he claims he arraign me byWhen you make an objection, it has to have substance behind it (the
> entering a plea on my behalf. I objected and that was it.
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)One who challenges jurisdiction has no use for motions, since they
> 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.
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.Really? Too bad. I know that some states still have people under
> Trial is set for August and today I got a certified copy of everyone's
> oath ........and they conform to what the state requires.
proper oaths. Even California has a few still alive.
> Now, (please don't get upset, I'm a slow learner) what do I do withKeep them for reference, but if they conform, they conform and there's
> these certified oaths?
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
> 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 StevenIf I were you, I'd be researching your local laws to see how all of the
> 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.
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
> 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
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!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>