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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Trial tomorrow

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    The Handyman and I have been on several lists together and I ve generally agreed with him on most issues. I forgot he was in his 70 s. He has more spare time
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 2006
      The Handyman and I have been on several lists together and I've
      generally agreed with him on most issues. I forgot he was in his 70's.
      He has more spare time than I do right now, which is why his cases may
      not be cut as short as possible for brevity, but extended for his own
      entertainment and education. I commend that approach since I myself had
      that approach for years. Then I got tired and bored from the local
      yokels (nobody really cares about fixing anything) and we virtually
      called a truce - in the name of Peace, really. Still, there are always
      new uninformed employee troughfeeders coming online all the time
      (there's a big turnover; lots of troughfeeders have drinking and family
      problems etc.)

      The Handyman said:
      > Froggy's reply was:
      > If you knew the judge's appointment was flawed, the right way to deal
      > with it was a disqualification for cause, before anything else.
      > This was a kind of feel as you go situation. I did not think of
      > disqualification until after the trial (sic).

      Okay, so tell everyone that the fact that I sound like a Johnny-One-Note
      on the disqualification as Step One, and have been doing so for years,
      has not been enough! Just think if 1% of all cases had to go through

      > I did challenge the DA
      > to produce a license but the Judge (?) said he was licensed and to
      > move on. Guess I should have refused to move on until he produced a
      > license.

      I don't think so - you accepted the judge without disqualifying him, so
      whatever he says goes in his court! The way to get that license was to
      subpoena (duces tecum) it for ALL people wishing to speak or participate
      officially at the hearing. As they come in, you have the bailiff
      qualify them before they take a seat. This requires that you speak
      beforehand to the bailiff. Don't disqualify him even though you can,
      because you need somebody there with a gun to protect you.

      > Hind sight says we all should force the judge to prove the
      > constitutional validity of his appointment pursuant to Ryder vs the
      > United States. Therein a hearing on the merits is required.

      I'm not familiar with Ryder, but I find local California law adequate to
      provide the same protections.

      > That should estop any trial or arraignment but they will counter and
      > prevail.

      That is just negative thinking! If it should be stopped, it should be
      stopped, and I'd have to see whether or not they could counter or
      prevail, but I will not assume it outright! When I'm in court, I
      imagine legions of angels ready to do battle with the slimy devils
      trying to manipulate their puppets in the courtroom. When I'm
      addressing a hostile judge, I'm in an age-old battle with the Devil
      himself. Actually, more like some Tibetan Demon from the Tibetan Book
      of the Dead - a figment of imagination, which is what all impersonators
      are. DO NOT SAY, "... but they will counter and prevail"!!! In MY
      experience, it is simply NOT TRUE. Arraignment prevention is my
      soundest cure for unwanted convictions that require expense and time to

      > "I pass counterfeit in an act of fraud to obtain loot of an edible
      > nature."...
      > Grant it that your response may be better

      I got that straight from Merrill Jenkins. It was his own testimony.

      > I still believe that they
      > cannot EXACT PRIVATE money equivalents pursuant to Hagar vs Land
      > Reclamation District 108. By admitting I had private money is by no
      > means admission that I could be forced to tender it or in default
      > thereof go to jail. I have never paid a fine in 30 years using this
      > argument.

      I like Hagar for my own purposes too, but I do not agree that today's
      FRNs are "private money", (they may be private, but they are not
      "money") nor do I believe that they establish any benchmark against
      which to measure "equivalency" to any THING. And I do not agree that
      public money has to be equivalent to private money. I get away from a
      lot of this by trading substance for substance and avoiding money except
      for gold and silver U.S. coins. I use the clad coin also, because today
      each one is worth more in metal than face value on world markets.

      > Now I must disagree with you.
      > They can only DEMAND payment with gold or silver coins IF they are
      > obtainable at par value with PRIVATE money.

      Where do you get this idea? Who are you turning to for your standard of
      "private money"? We on this list could create our own private money.
      Are you saying that the government has to maintain par with our unit of
      account, even though we can change it at will at our next board
      meeting?? Come on!? Again, you seem to look at the Federal Reserve as
      your only alternative, when it is NOT!

      > Then those gold/silver
      > coins must be coins that are circulated and regulated by Congress.

      So? Are you saying you don't know where any of those are? How come you
      don't have any?

      > Medallions and bullion are not coin.

      That's right, and I never said they were. There's plenty of the coin
      you're talking about out there for anyone who wants to use it. It's
      just that Americans do not want to use it, and are content with just
      about anything else sold to them as a substitute for those "heavy,
      cumbersome, inconvenient, subject-to-theft" metal coins.

      > Every Judge I have presented
      > this premise to backed off the issue.

      I'll bet. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. I don't really object
      to most of your points, I just think they are introduced prematurely and
      in improper order (for MY purposes). If you are happy with your
      results, don't worry about what I say because I am just one other man
      with entirely different needs and experiences etc. When freedom exists,
      myriad lifeforms prevail.

      > What does counsel have to do with money? By not having counsel at all
      > critical phases of the prosecution he was barred from putting me in
      > jail.

      Right. That's the "Counsel Issue" which should be argued BEFORE
      arraignment, and without which due process is denied. Only a WAIVER of
      RIGHTS would permit it to go unchallenged.

      > Once that was established that left him with me having to
      > PAY.

      Actually, what was established was that you waived your right. This
      encourages your opponents into thinking that you might waive even more!
      In an appeal, only those issues which were noted in the record as being
      objected to are considered. You need to make it plain in the record
      that you were FIGHTING for your RIGHT to UNFETTERED ASSISTANCE OF
      COMPETENT COUNSEL. Then, if they steamroll over you, the record is
      crystal clear and you have an appealable issue. But to waive the
      argument at the time it is crucial, and then try to appeal it to the
      same judge you earlier accepted, after sentencing, I think would place
      ME in more jeopardy of not having a nice day than I'd want to
      unnecessarily risk.

      > which I could not and because I could not he was constrained from
      > EXACTING anything. Acts of congress making the notes of the United
      > States legal tender do not apply to EXACTION made under color of state
      > law.

      Okay, you earlier said you never mentioned FRNs first, as I accused you
      of doing, just "private money equivalents". So, to clarify my tire-iron
      scrambled brain, why are you saying the above? Did he ask you for legal
      tender or notes of the United States? Did he actually use the words,
      "Federal Reserve Notes"?

      But here you're raising the issue of FRNs again, and not the same ones
      that your cases referred to, but new ones of an entirely different
      nature. Your cases refer to "notes" in their legal, lawful sense, not in
      a trademark sense. Today's "Federal Reserve Notes"(tm) are not Hagar's
      or Juilliard's "federal reserve notes", are not really "notes" and are
      not "of the United States". So, "Acts of congress making the notes of
      the United States legal tender do not apply to EXACTION made under color
      of state law" is just a little off point here.

      > Okay, but your HJR 192 argument is flawed, as it was repealed a long
      > time ago.

      > I am not sure about this and they certainly are not aware.

      I'll buy that. Trust me, I saw it myself in the Statutes at Large years
      ago, and my photocopy was stolen along with some other papers of mine,
      but when I last raised this issue online, another list member provided
      the proper citation for it, I think on this very list, so it might be in
      the archives. I think it was in 1978 or around then. But I remember
      reading it myself in the library when I first discovered it accidentally
      while doing other research. HJR 192 was repealed in its entirety. We
      can all pay our debts now, in any way we can agree upon. Most people
      opt not to pay, but to discharge and pass on their debts instead. But
      they are not forced to do so anymore by law. Now it is a matter of
      personal choice.

      > You can pay only gold and silver COIN pays any debt. FRNs only
      > DISCHARGE an OBLIGATION. There is a vast difference between payment
      > and dischargement.with anything you and your contractor may agree

      True. Except that today my contractor and I can agree that I will PAY
      with whatever we agree upon, not just gold or silver coin. I personally
      avoid the issue by not permitting debts to be created - I "pay"
      simultaneously with receiving the thing I'm paying for, and no debt is
      created. Once a debt is created, a person can legally choose to
      discharge it with FRNs, as unfair as that may be. We are always warned
      not to be lenders, and this is the risk lenders take. They may never be

      > fine is not an agreement it is an EXACTION. It is not what they will
      > accept but what they can demand.

      I do agree there. I had a case over that issue, and they dismissed
      rather than address it.

      > EQUIVALENTS were my reply. I see nothing wrong with that assertion.

      I do. Equivalent to what? Up above you claimed that public money had
      to be available at par with your "private money", so tell me what your
      FRN today is "equivalent to". I say it is equivalent to NOTHING.

      > You can trade them if you choose but the state must EXACT them
      > at par value.

      Oh, they would! A twenty dollar gold piece would pay a $20 fine!
      Again, I don't think this is what you really want to happen!

      > There is no way to plug a state judicial order or judgment
      > into a paper money system nor can you be forced to pay with penneys.

      That is so true. In fact, they'd most likely fight you over your tender
      of pennies, and they'd use some statute to do it. That's when I'd
      pounce on their choice of words in their statute, whatever it might be,
      and tie it in with the Catch-22 situation THEY have allowed to exist.

      > Pennies are coin (sic) but they are not gold or silver

      That's right, they are token coinage, but they DO lawfully "PAY" when
      used in amounts up to but not exceeding 25 cents per use. Again I thank
      Merrill Jenkins for enlightening me to another obscure fact.

      > I want to be placed under oath and testify that I have no
      > PUBLIC MONEY because the court can only demand public money. This was
      > an exaction..

      The problem is your local syndicate members will not engage on these
      kinds of issues - they will rule against you and make you appeal all the
      way to the Supreme Court. And appeals courts will look to see how hard
      you fought over each issue.

      > Again my
      > presumption was that the fine was for dollars of public money of which
      > there is none.

      Oh, there's some, but it's in the hands of the people and you say you
      aren't one of those who have any. There have always been indigents,
      ever since 1776 and before that. So even though there is certainly
      public money now in private hands, to get some you'll have to do
      something for it, and once you see what that is, you'll probably want to
      be like all the others and discharge government charges with scrip
      instead of your rare and valuable public money.

      > Granted I
      > should have refused to go to trial but I was trying Marc Steven's
      > method of trying to enter a guilty plea and force them to explain the
      > nature and cause of the accusation against me, which they will not do.

      I do not know Marc Stevens or "his" method, but I do know enough to
      NEVER plead "guilty" unless I want to go to jail or pay a fine. To have
      to plead BEFORE you know the nature and cause of the accusation MAKES NO
      SENSE AT ALL TO ME, nor would it have to Howard Freeman who seemed to
      know how to use the issue of "nature and cause" without PLEADING GUILTY!

      Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty!
      PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one
      waive so many rights, which waivers would have to be later overcome, I
      cannot understand why anyone would do that.

      > Again you are most probably correct but time is not
      > important to me. I am 73 and have time but the DA's time is a burden
      > to him. I'm not finished yet. In fact I will fill post convictions
      > form for the next 10 years. It is my recreation.

      I really commend you for that, tying up the machinery, being a diamond
      between the gristmill stones and all that. More people should do it.
      But I did my time and only quit when I saw I could not really effect
      change myself. I really only wanted to be left alone, and have achieved

      >I planned to use it on appeal and get a little more court room
      > pleasure.

      Okay. I think the appeals court may say you needed to address these
      issues more forcefully using the procedures and methods established.

      > > If the conviction is vitiated automatically then the Judge had no
      > > right to impose any sentence. This is my beliefs also.

      I believe you are right. Who will inform the goons for you?

      > Usually, this is
      > an argument for an appeal, since trial, conviction and sentencing
      > proceeded without objections that would have prevented all of them. I
      > did file an appeal and was only afforded a writ.

      I don't see the connection...or the "either-or" scenario. And what kind
      of writ? For what? An appeal requires a proposed settled statement and
      other documents to be produced. Did you do those? I forgot where you
      are. I don't know your local procedures or rights. It just doesn't
      make sense to me. Which doesn't mean anything either - I know only what
      I know and don't know the rest.

      > The writ
      > application was returned because it did not contain minutes. The
      > records were not forwarded and the clerk would not send the minutes.
      > I had no judicial review. I plan on going on what is called Post
      > Conviction Relief..as that is all that is available.

      This sounds very fishy to me. You mean where you are, they can avoid
      all appeals the same way they avoided yours? How convenient!

      > I figured I'd go to jail and they
      > would tell the judge I had MONEY on me. Then the judge would have to
      > prove it was money and the type of money he could EXACT.This happened
      > once before. They tried to get me on perjury but I proved that FRNs
      > are not PUBLIC money.

      Here, they'd most likely steal the 2000 FRNs and make you sue to get
      them back. That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Did you record the
      serial numbers of the bills? I look at FRNs the same way I look at
      poison oak or poison ivy.

      > In a real power vacuum, are you so
      > anxious to argue that you'll argue with anyone at all, even if they
      > are unqualified??
      > You are correct and it is of value to this forum to apply
      > what you are saying but I goofed.

      I don't think you goofed, because you had a goal to try something to see
      how it worked. You had the time and the willingness to risk. But I see
      so many complaints from people who sign tickets because they don't have
      the time to go the long way. I see people who panic over the very
      thought of going to court, much less anticipating battle over as many
      issues as they can think of. If one goes into court, one must
      anticipate either a trip to Washington D.C. or a loss, unless one has a
      plan ahead of time to win on an issue they know and can articulate
      better than their adversaries.

      > > There is no way that they will identify what state is "this
      > > state". Shalom I, and others have been very successful at presenting
      > for the court to identifyitself...it is jurisdictional and they simply
      > won't do it. Two cases were taken under advisement and never rulled
      > upon.

      There are so many issues...it is really hard to get them all in the
      right order when you want to try them. I still think they ought to be
      held in abeyance until it is necessary or proper to raise them, and I
      still advise against rushing forward and waiving rights just to get to
      the stage where your latest test defense comes into play. I think a
      good new defense issue should be used only if you get that far after
      going through all others you know about, putting each argument into it's
      logical proper order. In other words, if you know you aren't going to
      eat any fruit, you never get to discussing the varieties of apples.
      First things first. This will prevent waste of your time and resources
      and do the most good for all of us as a group. Pro pers who buy "kits"
      and think that the kit "works" do us all a disservice, even though it is
      good that they decide to fight back at all.

      > Froggy is good and he should make a script and outline for all to
      > follow. The Handyman

      Thanks but no, thanks. Why should I take the time to write a script
      nobody will probably use? Thousands of scripts are possible, for
      thousands of cases. Why not just get people to acknowledge that they
      are capable of writing their own scripts and not taking the ones offered
      to them by their adversaries? As for an outline, we should all do that
      here on this list. We could make a case flowchart. Somebody (Bear?)
      could act as coordinator and incorporate the pieces we all send in,
      arranging them in a proper order. We should all contribute our favorite
      defenses for each stage, and see if we can get them in a proper order so
      as to be able to try out the most in any one case. I'll bet we could
      come up with a potential case scenario where we could identify over 100
      stages to fight over and win or lose (maybe over 150). Can you imagine
      if each jurisdiction in this country had to deal with one or two such
      defendants each month? They'd be overwhelmed.


    • The Handyman
      Froggy wrote: Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty! PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one waive so
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 3, 2006

        Froggy wrote:


        Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty!
        PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one
        waive so many rights, which waivers would have to be later overcome, I
        cannot understand why anyone would do that.


        Response to all:


        Ok Froggy!  I served 7 years in prison to learn this one.  Read Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 or better yet sit in a traffic court and watch how the judge poses certain questions to an accused that wants to enter a guilty plea.  Notice first that the accused must have standby counsel to enter a guilty plea.  Then the judge must explain all the rights he is waiving but most importantly he must explain the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.  So we can take advantage of this weakness by requesting to enter a plea of guilty.  Then they will try to appoint an indigent defender.  I interview the defender for 5 minutes and present a contract that no lawyer will ever sign.  So it is always back into court and I tell the judge that the defender is insufficient counsel of my choice because he is not licensed and  he won’t sign my contract.  If the judge is upset he will then Bokinize you without any counsel and that is a big reversible error mistake. Read Boykin.  If the judge refuses to accept your guilty plea….and he must accept only after he meets the Boykin conditions he will most of the time enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf which you must object to.  Usually the Judge and counsel must sign the guilty plea form.  Trial without a proper arraignment will win every time on appeal. For general information Boykin  contends the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for relief because there is no record that he was advised of certain constitutional rights as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). In Boykin, the United States Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the trial judge to accept petitioner’s guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary. Id. at 242. More particularly, Boykin requires that the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that the defendant was informed of, and waived, three specific federal constitutional rights: the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one’s accusers. Id. at 243. The Court made clear, “[w]e cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.” Id.  It is not dangerous to try to enter a guilty plea.  In fact it is beneficial as on appeal it raises an issue they don’t want to  address. If you are willing to enter a guilty plea without counsel the judge must identify the jurisdiction as part of the nature and cause.  That is where the fun begins.  How can he justify a traffic cause a criminal without an injured party, property damage or an international contract in dispute?  Shalom 
        -------Original Message-------
        Date: 12/2/2006 11:44:27 PM
        Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Trial tomorrow

        FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.