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

Fw: update on my Washington County FORFEITURE OF OFFICE COMPLAINT

Expand Messages
  • Tom Kearse
    ... From: Dave Baugh To: Tom Kearse Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:00 PM Subject: update on my Washington County
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 30, 2003
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Dave Baugh" <dave@...>
      To: "Tom Kearse" <tkearse@...>
      Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:00 PM
      Subject: update on my Washington County FORFEITURE OF OFFICE COMPLAINT




      Well, guess what I got in the snail mail today? A copy of a summons served
      on the Washington County APA, Daniel E. James, requiring him to respond to
      my FORFEITURE OF OFFICE COMPLAINT within thirty (30) days, or judgment by
      default may be taken against him for the relief demanded in my petition,
      which is his forfeiture of office.

      I checked on casenet, and noticed that my complaint was received (date
      stamped as filed) on February 24th, but not "filed" until March 18th,
      because the clerk had to wait for "procedural instructions." It appears
      this is the first time in this county that anyone has sought to enforce the
      state & federal constitutions, and statutory provisions for forfeiture of
      office against public servants who have breached their limited powers of
      office.

      The officers I filed the same complaints against, and the Director of the
      MODOR I filed the same complaint against, were not named, but I'm assuming
      they will be included in the same case, or, perhaps they will be separate
      cases. Don't know yet......Could be too that the APA may try to enter his
      appearance for the other respondents.

      As you may recall, the clerk first mistakenly filed them in my traffic case,
      but then removed them upon my notice of her error.

      It appears that they are treating this like a regular civil suit, and
      allowing the respondents opportunity to rebut my complaint. Very
      interesting.......According to the provisions of sections 106.220 through
      106.290, RSMo., the judge is supposed to appoint a special prosecutor when
      such a complaint is filed against the prosecutor (and I'm assuming, his
      hireling lackey assistants). Apparently, this is what has happened. No
      judge was named on casenet (case no. 03CV610921), and no prosecutor either.
      I wonder if this county is just trying to keep this from getting into the
      AG's hands or the governor's hands, pursuant to section 106.250????

      The summons was served by sheriff's deputy on the APA on March 21st, so now
      he has to respond by April 21st.

      Seems like this has now put the APA, the police officers, and the Director
      of the MODOR on the defensive, having to show cause why they have not
      forfeited their respective offices by their respective actions/inactions
      against me, upon my timely and duly made NOTICE & DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION OF
      AUTHORITY.

      It is my understanding of the law that when one being moved against by
      public officers demands to be informed of the specific lawful authority
      under which they are acting, such specific, lawful authority must be
      provided to the person making the request, prior to any action being taken.
      Then, when VERIFICATION of stated authority is timely and duly DEMANDED,
      whether before or after any action is taken, it is my understanding of the
      law that such verification must be forthcoming, evidencing my liability to
      the charges said public officers have alleged I have violated, specifically,
      in my case, sections 302.020, 301.020, & 303.025, RSMo..

      These are de facto, extra-constitutional laws of "general applicability"
      only upon those "persons" to whom they apply, said to be "state parties,"
      but may not be arbitrarily and capriciously applied against non-state
      parties, such as myself.

      My position is presented from two points of law: 1) that the regulatory
      revenue schemes being administered and enforced against me, simply do not
      apply to me in my capacity as a non-state party, in exercise of ordinary
      right of locomotion, in use of a private automobile as a place travel
      device, and 2) that there is no essential evidence of any probative value in
      existence, supported by any essential competent witnesses, proving my
      liability to the charges.

      Now, it is these public officers' respective duties to know and understand
      the law, and its proper administration and enforcement, in their respective
      strictly limited, ministerial capacities. This duty and obligation is owed
      to me, in my capacity as one of the holders of the inherent political power,
      and a non-state party. These officers have failed in that duty.
      Furthermore, they owed that duty to all citizens they serve, and they failed
      in that duty, resulting in wrongful expenditure of revenue, and wasting of
      time and effort, belonging to the people at large. Furthermore, since
      their actions against me are unsupported by any evidence of liability, it
      amounts to criminal extortion for unjust enrichment (filthy lucre), under
      color of law, under color of office, using color of process.

      This is also supported by the fact that none of the officers named in my
      complaint, nor the Director of the MODOR, nor the prosecutor, can provide
      first-hand, personal knowledge, on oath, on penalty of perjury, that I am
      the "person" alleged to have made the application for the license at issue,
      said to be "valid expired" with the name "DAVID GEORGE BAUGH" thereon, and
      with the DL number: "457-70-8520."

      This is also supported by the fact that I have no automobiles titled with
      the MODOR, and that I own no "motor vehicles" whatsoever, but I have
      exclusive use of the automobile I use for ordinary locomotion as a place
      travel device. The MODOR-issued title was returned to said agency, upon its
      request, since I informed them I would not be titling or registering said
      car with the agency, since its use would not be under their jurisdictional
      authority. When a vehicle is not issued a title by the agency, it is
      impossible to register it with the agency, and, the compelled insurance law
      is not applicable to any vehicle that is not registered with the agency.

      So we can see that these public officers either knew, or should have known,
      the limits of their respective ministerial duty, and either knew, or should
      have known that there was not sufficient reasonable belief to rise above
      mere suspicion, bias or prejudice, to sustain adequate probable cause
      determination that such violations had occurred, in view of the fact that
      they had absolutely no substantially reasonable belief, or clear and
      convincing evidence, or personal knowledge of my liability to the statutory
      requirements, granting them any jurisdictional authority to act against me,
      at the time of the traffic stop, or subsequent to it.

      This action, and failure to properly verify their authority for taking such
      action, amounts to wanton negligence, knowingly and willfully committed,
      with careless and reckless disregard for my rights, and for the law which
      protects me and my rights, the purpose of which is to constrain said
      officers to within their respective strict, ministerial directives in the
      administration and enforcement of such regulatory revenue schemes, and
      prevent such flagrant misapplication of law.

      Finally, due to the fact that in my timely and duly served NOTICE AND DEMAND
      FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHORITY, each public officer was also put on actual
      and constructive notice that if they failed or refused to first
      respectively, properly verify their authority to move against me, they would
      be acting in bad faith, and with unclean hands if they proceeded with my
      prosecution, and would not be able to claim any immunity from either civil
      or criminal suit I may file against them.

      To add a little fuel to the fire, the cops ordered my car towed and it was
      impounded, even though it was on a private parking lot, with authorization
      of the owners of the lot, as I was conducting private business with said
      owners, which was my purpose for being there.

      Who polices the police? Go back and re-read the foregoing.

      As you guys know, I have done the same thing in Franklin County and in
      Jefferson County....so far. Franklin County has filed it, but the
      presiding judge is sitting on it. In Jefferson County, UNDER ADVICE OF HIS
      PRIVATE ATTORNEY, the clerk has informed me he will not file my complaint
      without a filing fee, in breach of the law set forth in sections 106.220
      through 106.290, RSMo. My next step here is to send my complaint to the AG
      and governor, plus a new complaint against the clerk, which will also be
      sent to the supreme court administrator's office.

      Please get this distributed around. This could very well be a powerful tool
      we have not yet begun to put to our use in regaining control of our inferior
      public servants. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

      Please know also that I am in dire need of financial support to keep up this
      work. A few bucks coming in from those who can afford it sustains me, and
      enables me, and is most certainly appreciated. I'll be sharing some things
      I'm doing to get some bucks rolling in which will be beneficial to you and
      others, as we strive together to restore our Liberty & freedom to exercise
      and enjoy it, and bring this corporate fiction creature government and mere
      humans we allow to run it for us back under control, and in obedience to the
      Laws of our Creator/Savior.

      David G. Baugh
      #25 Pipeline Road
      Sullivan, Missouri 63080
      573-468-3283



      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003
    • j
      HAHAHAHA! Bet they don t know what to do about ANYONE who fights back, with their OWN laws!!! Keep em going! Just watch your back. ... From: Tom Kearse
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 5, 2003
        HAHAHAHA!

        Bet they don't know what to do about ANYONE who fights back, with
        their OWN laws!!!
        Keep 'em going!
        Just watch your back.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Tom Kearse" <tkearse@...>
        To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: <THESOCIOLOGIST@...>
        Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:07 AM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Fw: update on my Washington County
        FORFEITURE OF OFFICE COMPLAINT


        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Dave Baugh" <dave@...>
        > To: "Tom Kearse" <tkearse@...>
        > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:00 PM
        > Subject: update on my Washington County FORFEITURE OF OFFICE
        COMPLAINT
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Well, guess what I got in the snail mail today? A copy of a
        summons served
        > on the Washington County APA, Daniel E. James, requiring him to
        respond to
        > my FORFEITURE OF OFFICE COMPLAINT within thirty (30) days, or
        judgment by
        > default may be taken against him for the relief demanded in my
        petition,
        > which is his forfeiture of office.
        >
        > I checked on casenet, and noticed that my complaint was
        received (date
        > stamped as filed) on February 24th, but not "filed" until March
        18th,
        > because the clerk had to wait for "procedural instructions."
        It appears
        > this is the first time in this county that anyone has sought to
        enforce the
        > state & federal constitutions, and statutory provisions for
        forfeiture of
        > office against public servants who have breached their limited
        powers of
        > office.
        >
        > The officers I filed the same complaints against, and the
        Director of the
        > MODOR I filed the same complaint against, were not named, but
        I'm assuming
        > they will be included in the same case, or, perhaps they will
        be separate
        > cases. Don't know yet......Could be too that the APA may try
        to enter his
        > appearance for the other respondents.
        >
        > As you may recall, the clerk first mistakenly filed them in my
        traffic case,
        > but then removed them upon my notice of her error.
        >
        > It appears that they are treating this like a regular civil
        suit, and
        > allowing the respondents opportunity to rebut my complaint.
        Very
        > interesting.......According to the provisions of sections
        106.220 through
        > 106.290, RSMo., the judge is supposed to appoint a special
        prosecutor when
        > such a complaint is filed against the prosecutor (and I'm
        assuming, his
        > hireling lackey assistants). Apparently, this is what has
        happened. No
        > judge was named on casenet (case no. 03CV610921), and no
        prosecutor either.
        > I wonder if this county is just trying to keep this from
        getting into the
        > AG's hands or the governor's hands, pursuant to section
        106.250????
        >
        > The summons was served by sheriff's deputy on the APA on March
        21st, so now
        > he has to respond by April 21st.
        >
        > Seems like this has now put the APA, the police officers, and
        the Director
        > of the MODOR on the defensive, having to show cause why they
        have not
        > forfeited their respective offices by their respective
        actions/inactions
        > against me, upon my timely and duly made NOTICE & DEMAND FOR
        VERIFICATION OF
        > AUTHORITY.
        >
        > It is my understanding of the law that when one being moved
        against by
        > public officers demands to be informed of the specific lawful
        authority
        > under which they are acting, such specific, lawful authority
        must be
        > provided to the person making the request, prior to any action
        being taken.
        > Then, when VERIFICATION of stated authority is timely and duly
        DEMANDED,
        > whether before or after any action is taken, it is my
        understanding of the
        > law that such verification must be forthcoming, evidencing my
        liability to
        > the charges said public officers have alleged I have violated,
        specifically,
        > in my case, sections 302.020, 301.020, & 303.025, RSMo..
        >
        > These are de facto, extra-constitutional laws of "general
        applicability"
        > only upon those "persons" to whom they apply, said to be "state
        parties,"
        > but may not be arbitrarily and capriciously applied against
        non-state
        > parties, such as myself.
        >
        > My position is presented from two points of law: 1) that the
        regulatory
        > revenue schemes being administered and enforced against me,
        simply do not
        > apply to me in my capacity as a non-state party, in exercise of
        ordinary
        > right of locomotion, in use of a private automobile as a place
        travel
        > device, and 2) that there is no essential evidence of any
        probative value in
        > existence, supported by any essential competent witnesses,
        proving my
        > liability to the charges.
        >
        > Now, it is these public officers' respective duties to know and
        understand
        > the law, and its proper administration and enforcement, in
        their respective
        > strictly limited, ministerial capacities. This duty and
        obligation is owed
        > to me, in my capacity as one of the holders of the inherent
        political power,
        > and a non-state party. These officers have failed in that
        duty.
        > Furthermore, they owed that duty to all citizens they serve,
        and they failed
        > in that duty, resulting in wrongful expenditure of revenue, and
        wasting of
        > time and effort, belonging to the people at large.
        Furthermore, since
        > their actions against me are unsupported by any evidence of
        liability, it
        > amounts to criminal extortion for unjust enrichment (filthy
        lucre), under
        > color of law, under color of office, using color of process.
        >
        > This is also supported by the fact that none of the officers
        named in my
        > complaint, nor the Director of the MODOR, nor the prosecutor,
        can provide
        > first-hand, personal knowledge, on oath, on penalty of perjury,
        that I am
        > the "person" alleged to have made the application for the
        license at issue,
        > said to be "valid expired" with the name "DAVID GEORGE BAUGH"
        thereon, and
        > with the DL number: "457-70-8520."
        >
        > This is also supported by the fact that I have no automobiles
        titled with
        > the MODOR, and that I own no "motor vehicles" whatsoever, but I
        have
        > exclusive use of the automobile I use for ordinary locomotion
        as a place
        > travel device. The MODOR-issued title was returned to said
        agency, upon its
        > request, since I informed them I would not be titling or
        registering said
        > car with the agency, since its use would not be under their
        jurisdictional
        > authority. When a vehicle is not issued a title by the agency,
        it is
        > impossible to register it with the agency, and, the compelled
        insurance law
        > is not applicable to any vehicle that is not registered with
        the agency.
        >
        > So we can see that these public officers either knew, or should
        have known,
        > the limits of their respective ministerial duty, and either
        knew, or should
        > have known that there was not sufficient reasonable belief to
        rise above
        > mere suspicion, bias or prejudice, to sustain adequate
        probable cause
        > determination that such violations had occurred, in view of the
        fact that
        > they had absolutely no substantially reasonable belief, or
        clear and
        > convincing evidence, or personal knowledge of my liability to
        the statutory
        > requirements, granting them any jurisdictional authority to act
        against me,
        > at the time of the traffic stop, or subsequent to it.
        >
        > This action, and failure to properly verify their authority for
        taking such
        > action, amounts to wanton negligence, knowingly and willfully
        committed,
        > with careless and reckless disregard for my rights, and for the
        law which
        > protects me and my rights, the purpose of which is to constrain
        said
        > officers to within their respective strict, ministerial
        directives in the
        > administration and enforcement of such regulatory revenue
        schemes, and
        > prevent such flagrant misapplication of law.
        >
        > Finally, due to the fact that in my timely and duly served
        NOTICE AND DEMAND
        > FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHORITY, each public officer was also put
        on actual
        > and constructive notice that if they failed or refused to first
        > respectively, properly verify their authority to move against
        me, they would
        > be acting in bad faith, and with unclean hands if they
        proceeded with my
        > prosecution, and would not be able to claim any immunity from
        either civil
        > or criminal suit I may file against them.
        >
        > To add a little fuel to the fire, the cops ordered my car towed
        and it was
        > impounded, even though it was on a private parking lot, with
        authorization
        > of the owners of the lot, as I was conducting private business
        with said
        > owners, which was my purpose for being there.
        >
        > Who polices the police? Go back and re-read the foregoing.
        >
        > As you guys know, I have done the same thing in Franklin County
        and in
        > Jefferson County....so far. Franklin County has filed it, but
        the
        > presiding judge is sitting on it. In Jefferson County, UNDER
        ADVICE OF HIS
        > PRIVATE ATTORNEY, the clerk has informed me he will not file my
        complaint
        > without a filing fee, in breach of the law set forth in
        sections 106.220
        > through 106.290, RSMo. My next step here is to send my
        complaint to the AG
        > and governor, plus a new complaint against the clerk, which
        will also be
        > sent to the supreme court administrator's office.
        >
        > Please get this distributed around. This could very well be a
        powerful tool
        > we have not yet begun to put to our use in regaining control of
        our inferior
        > public servants. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
        >
        > Please know also that I am in dire need of financial support to
        keep up this
        > work. A few bucks coming in from those who can afford it
        sustains me, and
        > enables me, and is most certainly appreciated. I'll be sharing
        some things
        > I'm doing to get some bucks rolling in which will be beneficial
        to you and
        > others, as we strive together to restore our Liberty & freedom
        to exercise
        > and enjoy it, and bring this corporate fiction creature
        government and mere
        > humans we allow to run it for us back under control, and in
        obedience to the
        > Laws of our Creator/Savior.
        >
        > David G. Baugh
        > #25 Pipeline Road
        > Sullivan, Missouri 63080
        > 573-468-3283
        >
        >
        >
        > ---
        > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        > Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date:
        3/25/2003
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
        Sponsor ---------------------~-->
        > Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/aQSolB/TM
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------
        ------~->
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.