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

FW: " Court Fees?"

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:26 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: Court Fees? Yipes!
    Message 1 of 1 , May 28 3:52 PM
      -----Original Message-----
      From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:26 PM
      To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
      Subject: " Court Fees?"

      Yipes! Your questions are confusing. Aren't you the same guy that told
      me, "It's not important. Go ahead and pay them so they let you file
      your case!"

      **I agree that the 1st amendment prohibits Congress from granting to the
      Judiciary power to impose fees on citizens who petition their government
      for redress of grievances. **

      "Republican Form of Government" prohibits the congress from abridging
      access to court. The first amendment article merely clarifies this.

      Additionally, capitation is prohibited as are poll taxes...

      The judiciary is a republican institution consisting of civil servants
      obedient to the public for their employment.

      I otherwise concur in principle.

      **They have tried to get around this by imposing this "usage tax" only
      on those who can afford it. But then they violate the fundamental of
      Equal Protection of the Law by allowing pauper's cases to be judged by a
      different standard and summarily dismissed as "friviolous". Something
      USC 1915, by memory. **

      It's a "docket fee" to pay an attorney.

      Docket fee. An attorney's fee, of a fixed sum, chargable with or as a
      part of the costs of the action, for the attorney of the successful
      party; so called because chargable on the docket, not as a fee for
      making docket entries. Black's Fifth Edition, Page 432

      Under Rule 25 there must be a "hearing" to permit an attorney to
      substitute for a party. Formerly, this was a royal monopoly granted by
      letters patent and no state corporate has ever been granted the
      privilege to indulge attorneys in this manner by the Constitution or
      Laws of the United States of America. In PRACTICE attorneys don't
      bother to follow the rule, have a hearing or receive consent to enter
      when they can just file any paper with their name on it to appear but
      the clerks still collect the hearing fee from all incompetent parties or
      their attorneys and employ a court officer to make the determination
      that a party is idiota and must have a guardian ad litem.

      �AN attorney at law answers to the procurator, or proctor, of the
      civilians and canonists . And he is one who is put in the place, stead,
      or turn of another, to manage his matters of law. Formerly every suitor
      was obliged to appear in person, to prosecute or defend his suit,
      (according to the old Gothic constitution) unless by special license
      under the king's letters patent. This is still the law in criminal
      cases. And an idiot cannot to this day appear by attorney, but in
      person; for he hath not discretion to enable him to appoint a proper
      substitute: and upon his being brought before the court in so
      defenseless a condition, the judges are bound to take care of his
      interests, and they shall admit the best plea in his behalf that any one
      present can suggest. But, as in the Roman law �cum olim in usu fuisset,
      alterius nomine agi nom posse, sed, quia hoc non minimam incommoditatem
      habebat, coeperunt homines per procuratores litigareo.� ["Although
      formerly it had been the custom for no one to act in the name of
      another; yet, as this was attended with great inconvenience, men began
      to carry on law-suits by proctors."] so with us, upon the same principle
      of convenience, it is now permitted in general, by divers ancient
      statutes, whereof the first is statute West. 2. c. 10. that attorneys
      may be made to prosecute or defend any action in the absence of the
      parties to the suit. These attorneys are now formed into a regular
      corps; they are admitted to the execution of their office by the
      superior courts of Westminster-hall; and are in all points officers of
      the respective courts in which they are admitted: and, as they have many
      privileges on account of their attendance there, so they are peculiarly
      subject to the censure and animadversion of the judges. No man can
      practice as an attorney in any of those courts, but such as is admitted
      and sworn an attorney of that particular court: an attorney of the court
      of king's bench cannot practice in the court of common pleas; nor vice
      versa. To practice in the court of chancery it is also necessary to be
      admitted a solicitor therein: and by the statute 22 Geo. II. c. 46. no
      person shall act as an attorney at the court of quarter sessions, but
      such as has been regularly admitted in some superior court of record. So
      early as the statute 4 Hen. IV. c. 18. it was enacted, that attorneys
      should be examined by the judges, and none admitted but such as were
      virtuous, learned, and sworn to do their duty. And many subsequent
      statutes have laid them under farther regulations.� William Blackstone
      Commentaries, Book 3, Chapter 3, Page 26

      IF YOU study Title 28, Chapter 123-Fees and Costs you will find much
      more than you would suspect about the "fees" and their significance that
      you thought unimportant. "FEE" comes from "fief" and it is a favor
      granted for consideration in feudalism which has not held sway here
      since the king was dethroned.

      28 U.S.C � 1911
      -000-.html> - Grants a taxing power upon litigants but does not
      institute a poll tax or capitation upon CITIZENS�.

      28 U.S.C � 1912
      -000-.html> - This section holds the "Supreme Court" to AFFIRM
      judgments and impose double costs on the LOSER!

      28 U.S.C � 1913
      -000-.html> - Here the Judicial Conference Court
      -000-.html> imposes the fees and costs where the congress has no power
      to act. Hmmmmm?

      28 U.S.C � 1914
      -000-.html> - This section most relied upon does not institute a poll
      tax or capitation upon CITIZENS� whose right to petition cannot be
      abridged. What "parties" are subject to it?

      28 U.S.C � 1915 - We have herein identified the subject party liable to
      purchase their right to petition with this section:

      "if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
      pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a
      filing fee."

      AND said "prisoner" can be anybody accused of a crime:

      " As used in this section, the term �prisoner� means any person
      incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted
      of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal
      law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release,
      or diversionary program."

      Otherwise anyone incompetent to conduct court and represented by someone
      else would be alieni juris and in effect a prisoner.

      28 U.S.C � 1915A
      A000-.html> - Did you MISS this one? It grants absolute power to
      whoever runs the court and includes impunity: Oh my!

      "the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint"

      28 U.S.C � 1916
      -000-.html> - The attorneys LIKE SEAMEN! They don't have to pay any
      fees. What makes SEAMEN better than you?

      28 U.S.C � 1920
      -000-.html> - This one identifies and lists taxable costs and fees
      including compensation paid to "experts" (such as judges, magistrates
      and masters?) yet still fails to state that CITIZENS� are mandated to
      purchase their constitutional right to petition redress of grievances.

      28 U.S.C � 1923
      -000-.html> - Here's the fee schedule for attorneys, proctors and
      solicitors. Any wonder that I see these bastards as courtesans in a

      28 U.S.C � 1924
      -000-.html> - This one I have used to demand that the clerk specify
      what services they are going to do for the fee that is not a duty
      covered by their generous salary. Clerks will not answer this question
      and always deny that they are refusing to file your complaint.

      28 U.S.C � 1927
      -000-.html> - Excessive costs may be charged to attorneys such as
      judges so you have a right to demand an explanation of charges for
      anything that is constitutionally free and without purchase.

      28 U.S.C � 1929
      -000-.html> - This section mentions "extraordinary" expenses,"
      "ministerial officers" and the permission of the attorney general. Do
      you imagine that your right to petition is anything less than ordinary?

      28 U.S.C � 1931
      -000-.html> - How about that? The money goes into a slush fund!

      "But it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a
      defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his
      liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which has a
      direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a
      conclusion against him in his case." TUMEY v. STATE OF OHIO, 273 U.S.
      510 (1927)

      "Indeed, in analogous cases it is very clear that the slightest
      pecuniary interest of any officer, judicial or quasi judicial, in the
      resolving of the subject-matter which he was to decide, rendered the
      decision voidable." TUMEY (Supra)

      **Care to comment on the following? ie; The Law that the petition you
      posted refers to as grant of jurisdiction. It appears to grant an
      Accountant the ability to act as an Attorney representing an incompetent
      in a tax case.**

      I'd comment if I knew what you were talking about. Give me some more

      **I also noted, on research of a prior distribution from you, that
      Congress made a change (don't known when) in the Injunction act you
      previously referred to. It says that ONLY an Attorney employed in the
      Department of Justice can file an Injunction. Going by memory here but
      it was to that effect. **

      Your memory doesn't do much good for my memory. Code sections 2281 and
      2283 requiring "a three-judge court" for injunctions were repealed. 28
      U.S.C. � 2283
      -000-.html> doesn't say anything about attorneys although the notes
      -000-notes.html> are confusing about the history and intent of changes.

      "The exceptions specifically include the words �to protect or
      �effectuate its judgments,� for lack of which the Supreme Court held
      that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of
      cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v.
      New York Life Insurance Co., 62 S.Ct. 139, 314 U.S. 118, 86 L.Ed. 100. A
      vigorous dissenting opinion (62 S.Ct. 148) notes that at the time of the
      1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts, of the
      United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the
      revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change).
      Therefore the revised section restores the basic law as generally
      understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision. "

      You might think of state forums as private legal industries where
      clients employ attorney agents to resolve an issue by legally binding
      litigation canceling, waiving and forfeiting the constitutional right to
      petition redress of grievances which obligatory contractual agreements
      cannot then be overturned by the use of United States Courts in the same
      manner. There is law and there is enterprise with the attorneys not
      admitting the differences.

      "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant
      Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
      any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
      any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
      Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.