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

Illinois Judges On Oath Of Office

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    Thursday 30 August 2007 This has been my experience with two judges and oath of office challenges for attorney and police. In my foreclosure case, I demanded
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 5 2:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thursday 30 August 2007

      This has been my experience with two judges
      and oath of office challenges for attorney
      and police.

      In my foreclosure case, I demanded proof of
      license that the opposition was licensed in
      Illinois as asserted.

      Judge: The burden of proof is on you. I
      suggest you spend your time more wisely on
      other parts of your case.

      Me: What is the enacting law on that?

      Judge: I will make no further comment.

      In another matter on traffic tickets,
      I told a judge I was there in a special
      appearance to challenge jurisdiction on the
      basis that the person who issued the ticket
      is not a policeman because he does not have
      the proper oath of office on file.

      Judge: He certaily is a policeman, and I know
      he has taken an oath to support the constitution,
      isnt that right, officer!

      Officer: Yes, judge, I took the oath.

      Me: But it is not the oath required by Article
      XIII of the Illinois Constitution.

      Judge: I'm telling you he is a police officer.
      What else do you have?

      Me: He does not have the required oath of office.
      It is different, and I have a certified copy of
      the oath he took.

      Judge: Show what you have to the prosecutor:

      Me: Is this person licensed to practice law in
      Illinois?

      Judge: She certainly is! I've known her for over
      20 years, and I have even been on the other side of
      a few cases with her, and I can tell you that she
      is licensed.

      Me: I want proof of license produced.

      Judge: She is licesned, that is not an issue here.

      Judge looks at my certified copy of cop's oath,
      along with my copy of Article XIII to compare.

      Judge, laughing: Are you serious!?
      (In an aside to his clerk: It must be a full moon)
      He read them both.

      Me: There is a difference, and his oath is not the
      one required for him to take before taking office
      as a policeman.

      Judge: His oath is sufficent for me.

      Me: That may be your opinion, but the Illinois
      Constitution says otherwise.


      Me: What is the name of this person? (referring to
      acting prosecutor)

      Judge: I'm not going to tell you!

      Me: You are not going to give me her name?


      Judge: Absolutely not! If she wants to tell you
      privately, that's up to her.


      Judge: Take it up on appeal. Take some bystander
      notes and make your appeal. I will use your copies
      of what you gave me. Guilty. Fine is $450.

      At which point a bailiff came up and said, "Step back
      amd leave. You're done."

      A second one came up along side me and said to
      leave as well.

      I did not get my opportunity to ask what the current
      money of account is in the US today, and how much of
      that is a dollar, but I will certainly tell the
      appelate court the fine is vague in not saying dollars
      of what?

      Frog Farmer has an easier environment in Californnia
      for challenging oaths of office for the lower levels.
      My foreclosure judge would not address it at all, and
      you can see the attitude of the traffic court judge
      in the cop/attorney challenge.

      From the trenches,

      mn
    • mn_chicago
      Someone replied privately to my post, and I am posting my reply only because it contains a few experiences I did not mention previously. My reply: Yeah, we
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 5 4:03 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Someone replied privately to my post, and I am
        posting my reply only because it contains a few
        experiences I did not mention previously.

        My reply:

        "Yeah, we all need more reality experiences from which
        to learn and grow.

        The California stautes are written more clearly, it
        seems. Plus, one cannot discount the unusual
        character FF is in his knowledge and convictions,
        usually more than the rest of us.

        The one thing I remember about my experience with the
        traffic sourt judge was that I kept interrupting him
        to say, "But it is NOT the required oath!" and he
        never jumped on me for it.

        I had four tickets and a second judge which I did not
        discuss. She immediately stopped me and said I was
        to have a jury trial, and that was the end of that.

        In Chicago, bailiffs seemed to be taught to be right
        up there when someone is standing up to a judge. Even
        in her court, I was immediately approach by bailiffs
        and told to leave.

        Thanks for the thought.

        mn
      • Frog Farmer
        ... At least you have some! ... Here s my comment on this section: Out here in the land of fruits and nuts there are a few different ways of getting
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 5 6:15 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          mn_chicago wrote:

          > This has been my experience with two judges
          > and oath of office challenges for attorney
          > and police.

          At least you have some!

          > In my foreclosure case, I demanded proof of
          > license that the opposition was licensed in
          > Illinois as asserted.
          >
          > Judge: The burden of proof is on you. I
          > suggest you spend your time more wisely on
          > other parts of your case.
          >
          > Me: What is the enacting law on that?
          >
          > Judge: I will make no further comment.

          Here's my comment on this section: Out here in the land of fruits and
          nuts there are a few different ways of getting information. Recently
          one California list member posted some statutes on it. I never had to
          use them yet. So far, for over 30 years, I've just asked some girl in
          the right office, and gotten the answer to where the info was which was
          moved almost every year. I have not run into any problems with any
          city, just county and state actors. My goal is to get the evidence
          suitable for court (usually certified copies) of the documents required
          to show what I want to be able to show, BUT....I may not WANT to show
          them, only RELY upon them. But if I HAD to show them to achieve some
          purpose or goal, I'd have them to show. I have quite a stack of
          certified copies of oaths on file. If I were to want to show certified
          documents in a courtroom setting, I might also want to subpoena a paid
          expert witness in the form of an 8th grade Grammar instructor, and have
          counsel present if only as a witness, in case those around me were
          standard American literate.

          > In another matter on traffic tickets,
          > I told a judge I was there in a special
          > appearance to challenge jurisdiction on the
          > basis that the person who issued the ticket
          > is not a policeman because he does not have
          > the proper oath of office on file.

          My opinion is you said too much and gave him something to adjudicate (a
          fact in contention), supported by tender of evidence. My first question
          is, how did this guy "the judge" survive your disqualification process?

          Second, when did you know the complainant wasn't a cop, when you met
          him, through your own interrogatory Initial Moment Of Confrontation
          disqualification attempt, or later, after finding records indicating it?

          > Judge: He certaily is a policeman, and I know
          > he has taken an oath to support the constitution,
          > isnt that right, officer!
          >
          > Officer: Yes, judge, I took the oath.

          "Objection! Leading the witness! If you're testifying, I'd like to put
          you under oath. If not, you're showing bias in favor of your friend
          here. And the issue is not as you see it, but since you cannot be a
          party against me, you'll have to recuse yourself right now.

          "Occifer Obie, are you willing to testify under penalty of perjury right
          here and now, in front of all these witnesses, that you personally
          checked the correctness of the oath of office that is officially on file
          signed by yourself? Are you willing to bet that your oath conforms to
          the law exactly, and that you were not offered the wrong oath by
          impersonating infiltrators so as to make you a blackmail target? In
          other words, you take full responsibility for your oath, and rely upon
          no other person's instructions to do or not do anything regarding your
          solemn obligation to take it and file it as required by law? Let the
          record show we have a certified copy of your oath as it exists today in
          the records. We find it fails to conform to law, as is plain on its
          face to anyone who can read. You can read, can you not Occifer Obie?
          Please Call 8th Grade Teacher to the stand..."

          > Me: But it is not the oath required by Article
          > XIII of the Illinois Constitution.
          >
          > Judge: I'm telling you he is a police officer.
          > What else do you have?

          "Dudley Dooright was a police officer too, but not one in any
          jurisdiction affecting me. To affect me here now, my neighbor becomes a
          policeman only after taking the required oath, not just ANY oath. The
          record fails to show an oath conforming to law taken by this
          impersonator friend of yours. Let the record show I didn't ask you for
          an opinion. If you find the record in error, you are free to issue an
          order to change it. Until then, it stands notwithstanding any dicta you
          may utter."

          > Me: He does not have the required oath of office.
          > It is different, and I have a certified copy of
          > the oath he took.
          >
          > Judge: Show what you have to the prosecutor:

          Trick trap set...you should have done that long ago. Your certified
          copy is not to show them, let them get their own. It is to protect YOU.
          YOU keep it, hold it, and have it for if it is ever needed. You don't
          use it to create jurisdiction where they most likely never had it in the
          first place. When you hand it to the person you choose as the
          prosecutor, you make them the prosecutor to the witnesses. If I knew
          there was no prosecutor, I'd stick to it and say, "there is no
          prosecutor, otherwise he or she could be identified for the record."

          > Me: Is this person licensed to practice law in
          > Illinois?

          You don't ask questions you don't already know the answer to. Why
          wasn't a subpoena issued for the necessary documents in time for a
          hearing where you already established jurisdiction? Then their absence
          would be a valid excuse for a continuance until they could be found.

          > Judge: She certainly is! I've known her for over
          > 20 years, and I have even been on the other side of
          > a few cases with her, and I can tell you that she
          > is licensed.

          "Then it won't be too hard to enter proof into the record. You'd be
          surprised what researchers are finding from coast to coast in the nature
          of waste fraud and abuse perpetrated by impersonating infiltrators whom
          nobody ever suspected. I'm sorry, but I don't know either of you from
          Adam, and court is not a popularity poll so it doesn't matter who the
          bailiffs like either. I do not care who knows who - I demand that the
          records reflect what they must and if they don't, that record of that
          fact be made."

          > Me: I want proof of license produced.
          >
          > Judge: She is licesned, that is not an issue here.

          "It is an issue because you have no evidence for me. I won't take your
          word unless you are sworn. Are you offering to testify? Since you
          oppose the certified record, you are attempting to obstruct justice. I
          demand you recuse yourself immediately!"

          > Judge looks at my certified copy of cop's oath,
          > along with my copy of Article XIII to compare.
          >
          > Judge, laughing: Are you serious!?
          > (In an aside to his clerk: It must be a full moon)
          > He read them both.
          >
          > Me: There is a difference, and his oath is not the
          > one required for him to take before taking office
          > as a policeman.
          >
          > Judge: His oath is sufficent for me.

          (This is why all "judges" should be disqualified BEFORE they can act.)

          "It's not sufficient for me, and as I just said, your willingness to
          laugh while ignoring the law will make interesting reading for the
          appeal."

          > Me: That may be your opinion, but the Illinois
          > Constitution says otherwise.

          (This guy should never have been given the opportunity to make an
          opinion on anything.)

          > Me: What is the name of this person? (referring to
          > acting prosecutor)
          >
          > Judge: I'm not going to tell you!
          >
          > Me: You are not going to give me her name?

          Why didn't YOU ask her her name after she spoke against you? She has to
          identify herself as the prosecutor, doesn't she, or does that aspect
          attach when sitting in a special chair or standing in a special spot on
          the floor? Isn't her name required on other certifiable documents?

          > Judge: Absolutely not! If she wants to tell you
          > privately, that's up to her.
          >
          > Judge: Take it up on appeal. Take some bystander
          > notes and make your appeal. I will use your copies
          > of what you gave me. Guilty. Fine is $450.

          This is another reason to fight hardest and force a jury trial. I don't
          see anything here to appeal, because there was no proper record of
          proper objections, which is the grist of an appeal. Trial de novo
          maybe...

          >
          > At which point a bailiff came up and said, "Step back
          > amd leave. You're done."

          Glad they didn't stick a fork in you to see...

          > I did not get my opportunity to ask what the current
          > money of account is in the US today, and how much of
          > that is a dollar, but I will certainly tell the
          > appelate court the fine is vague in not saying dollars
          > of what?

          I personally don't see that issue as coming before the appeals court at
          this stage. Appeals are usually only for recorded objections that were
          formally overruled. They are not retrials and do not usually admit new
          arguments.

          > Frog Farmer has an easier environment in California
          > for challenging oaths of office for the lower levels.

          While in other states, infiltrating impersonators have a field day
          because anyone is taken to be anything they claim! "I'm emperor!"
          "Shucks, I never met an emperor before...do I call you "your majesty or
          your eminence or what?" "Make your check out to cash..."

          > My foreclosure judge would not address it at all, and
          > you can see the attitude of the traffic court judge
          > in the cop/attorney challenge.
          >
          > From the trenches,

          Yes, it's a war. Will Americans win and get to keep their country? Or
          will they be wards of the international corporate matrix?

          Watching "Catch-22", and loving it!

          Regards,

          FF
        • one
          From the way you tell this, it sounds like you were found guilty summarily without any officer taking the stand. If so, you can file a motion for the court to
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 5 8:10 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            From the way you tell this, it sounds like you were found guilty
            summarily without any officer taking the stand.

            If so, you can file a motion for the court to set aside judgment on the
            grounds of insufficiency of evidence.

            Assuming not much time has passed. Then, if this motion is denied,
            that's what you appeal on.

            I was also interested that you were advised to gather bystander notes.
            What's that ?
          • Michael Noonan
            ... No, I did not go into all the details. The officer did relate his take of events. My unceasing point to the judge was that the tickets were not
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 6 2:54 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- one <jm367@...> wrote:

              > From the way you tell this, it sounds like you were
              > found guilty
              > summarily without any officer taking the stand.

              No, I did not go into all the details. The officer
              did relate his take of events. My unceasing point to
              the judge was that the tickets were not legitimate
              because the 'officer' lacked the proper oath.


              > I was also interested that you were advised to
              > gather bystander notes.
              > What's that ?


              As a measure for "cutting costs," many courts have
              done away with court reporters, so there is no
              "record" one can ask for.

              Bystander notes are submitted as a form of testimony
              from one who was in the court and took notes of the
              conversations and present them as best as recalled.
              I did this once about 5 years ago, and it was accepted
              by the appellate court.

              Cheers!

              mn




              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
              http://farechase.yahoo.com/
            • one
              On these facts, what I posted before is still good, because without the proper oath there is insufficient evidence of a duly certified charge before the court.
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 6 6:05 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On these facts, what I posted before is still good, because without the
                proper oath there is insufficient evidence of a duly certified charge
                before the court.

                The officer's testimony does not state a charge.

                Did you impeach the officer ?
                You had a really ideal set up for doing so.
              • Moisha Pippik
                To Michael Noonan and Group: Yes, keep it up. You will never learn by not practicing. Several things come to mind............. An officer with power has to
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 6 8:13 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  To Michael Noonan and Group:
                   
                  Yes, keep it up.  You will never learn by not practicing.
                   
                  Several things come to mind.............
                   
                  An officer with power has to have an oath of office, otherwise, he is just a neighbor.  Remember another member calling them such.  Also,  a court has requirements to have authority to rule.  A justiciable cause is required, with a valid complaint.  I hope you all study the requirements of a valid complaint.  Regardless of all the shenanigans that our adversaries try to push on us, the real deal is our right to contract.  This is all the actors are doing, contracting with us.  Now I am to a point in my learning that after running down all the rabbit trails I can, I have finally determined that I will not accept or believe anything our adversaries say or do is real.  Yea, yea, yea, it sure is real when the handcuffs are on, and when the jail door slams, that's real, right?  I've been there, done that, and now I can say I agreed to it, agreed to it all.  I had my doubts, and agreed.  What I am experiencing now is the same type greeting that others, such as Bear and FrogFarmer have shared.  I'm not sure how it happened, but I surely thought I was doing it wrong at the first few encounters after applying what I learned, but now is different.  Is it my attitude, my perception, my actions?  I can't really say, but know more jails, no more cuffs, and no more unpleasant experiences in my little township, nor the entire state I find myself in.  I will repeat this for those that doubt our techniques, IT WORKS!!!!!!!!  When and how is always different, but once it starts, it just keeps getting better.  I cannot even get an invitation anymore with our actors.  Either can my close friend who practices the same.  I would not consider myself a danger to them, cause I'm not preachin this stuff to the choir.  Most sheep in my town don't want to know what's up, and think I'm pretty much a mental case.  I have been in both criminal and civil procedures in this new found psyche, and it applies to all.  This is all about contracting, and the parties to the contract are always the same, I just won't be a contracting party anymore.
                   
                  Moisha

                  Michael Noonan <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

                  --- one <jm367@bellsouth. net> wrote:

                  > From the way you tell this, it sounds like you were
                  > found guilty
                  > summarily without any officer taking the stand.

                  No, I did not go into all the details. The officer
                  did relate his take of events. My unceasing point to
                  the judge was that the tickets were not legitimate
                  because the 'officer' lacked the proper oath.


                  > I was also interested that you were advised to
                  > gather bystander notes.
                  > What's that ?

                  As a measure for "cutting costs," many courts have
                  done away with court reporters, so there is no
                  "record" one can ask for.

                  Bystander notes are submitted as a form of testimony
                  from one who was in the court and took notes of the
                  conversations and present them as best as recalled.
                  I did this once about 5 years ago, and it was accepted
                  by the appellate court.

                  Cheers!

                  mn

                  ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                  Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
                  http://farechase. yahoo.com/


                  Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
                  Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

                • Legalbear
                  I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogy for Al and Michael. In MMA there is a choke hold called the guillotine. In this hold the opponents head goes
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 6 9:39 PM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogy for Al and Michael.

                     

                    In MMA there is a choke hold called the guillotine. In this hold the opponents head goes under your arm at the arm pit with his shoulder up against his opponent’s chest. You hook the same arm under the chin of the opponent and lean down on the head. This results in pressure on the main artery in the opponent’s neck and cuts off the flow of blood to his brain. If the fighters are on the floor when this hold is obtained, the opponent defends this choke hold by standing up and elevating his hips. This relieves the pressure on the neck and eventually his opponent has to release the hold because it is not resulting in the desired result. The “choker” can prevent his opponent from standing up by wrapping his legs around the “chokee’s” torso or legs and either preventing the chokee from elevating his hips, or, by maintaining the same leverage by elevating his own hips as the chokee attempts to elevate his. All of this takes place as a referee looks on watching for the chokee to “tap out”; that is to give up before he passes out at which point the referee will stop the fight.

                     

                    The way I see it, both Michael and Al’s approach are analogous in this way. They wanted to affect a guillotine choke by disqualifying everybody involved in their cases. They got their arm under the chin of their opponent and tried to press down to put pressure on the neck by orally raising the issue. In Michael’s case the judge, or the referee, got involved in the fight and lifted up the opponent’s hips for him by testifying on the issue that he knew the opponent was an attorney. In Al’s case, the opponent (judge) defended the hold by raising up her own hips and ignoring the issue. Both Al and Michael failed to recognize that for the legal guillotine to work they had to wrap their legs around the opponent and prevent him/her from elevating the hips. In a legal guillotine choke hold that would be filing a written motion to disqualify the attorney or judge on the basis they are not qualified supported by authority, insisting that the judge can not rule on the motion because she is the subject of it in Al’s case; and in Michael’s case insisting that the judge not help the opponent while ruling on the motion in Michael’s case. As soon as the judge takes any action betraying bias while ruling on the motion, off to the supervisory court you go with a complaint or petition for prohibition accompanied by a motion to stay the proceedings in the court below while the supervisory court hears and determines the issue. Talking about the intention to seek prohibition in the motion in the trial court would be analogous to preventing your opponent from raising his hips to defend the choke.

                     

                    In another post when addressing threats of civil RICO I discussed the concept of needing to paint a complete picture by knowledge, actions, words, posture, etc. The reason Frog Farmer’s guillotine choke holds work for him is because he paints a picture for them that conveys that he knows how to do the choke hold and that HE WILL NOT allow them to raise their hips to defend and relieve the pressure. He lets them know that HE WILL NOT allow a judge to violate due process principles by jumping in there to elevate his opponent’s hips to relieve the pressure.

                     

                    In MMA once the opponent escapes a guillotine choke hold the really good chokers will have another submission hold waiting right behind that; so the chokee goes from one form of jeapordy to another. The choker is thinking ahead, “If the chokee gets out this hold there is only one place he can go as he gets out and when he goes there something special will be waiting for him.” The thing I have excelled at that I believe causes them leave me alone is that I have demonstrated over and over to them that if they get out of one there will be another right behind it that will be just as dangerous. Sometimes it is criminal charges; sometimes it is taking them before the Supreme Court or attorney discipline. I threaten their careers and reputations. I boldly show up in places with tactics they never dreamed anyone would come up with. It is not enough to know about the choke hold. You also have to know what the defense to the hold is, anticipate its use, and nullify it effectively. Bear

                     

                    PS: So much of this centers around understanding the nuances of due process. You have got to recognize exactly why, from a legal standpoint, what is happening to you that you feel is wrong, violates due process. In Michael’s case, when the judge starts elevating the opponents hips and relieving the pressure from the choke; “[raising the voice so it fills the courtroom] Objection! Judge, you violate due process when you help my opponent prosecute her case and testify on her behalf from the bench! If you are going to continue to help my opponent [by raising her hips J and relieving the pressure], I will have my motion for substitution of judge filed day after tomorrow! I will not tolerate a “structural defect” such as this in any case I am a party in!” In Al’s case; “Objection! [raising the voice so it fills the courtroom] Judge, in the CA code of criminal procedure at section so and so it specifies that even an oral motion for substitution of judge must be the first…first…first issue ruled upon in any case! Are you not following the Code because you are trying to railroad me through to a conviction?! If you are, that in itself is proof of your bias! If it was you over here being prosecuted, is this the kind of due process you would accept? You would demand full due process! You might as well admit it! That is what I am demanding; and if you do not want to give it to me…tell me right now!” I highly recommend going to the library and checking out a law book devoted to due process. Get one on objections while you are there as well.

                     

                    PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

                    For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

                    BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

                    www.irs-armory.com

                    www.irslienthumper.com

                    www.legalbears.com

                    www.legalresearchvideo.com

                    www.cantheydothat.com

                    To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
                    tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                     

                  • Pro Se
                    a really good person trained in mma AVOIDS the choke... Moderator/Bear: My entire point is to be the choker and make it work! ... Sick sense of humor? Visit
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 7 12:05 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      a really good person trained in mma AVOIDS the choke...Moderator/Bear: My entire point is to be the choker and make it work!


                      Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
                    • Michael Noonan
                      ... I had a conversation with an attorney who is very highly regarded for his skills in the legal system. He told me that any judge will look at my demands to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 8 9:06 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- one <jm367@...> wrote:

                        > On these facts, what I posted before is still good,
                        > because without the
                        > proper oath there is insufficient evidence of a duly
                        > certified charge
                        > before the court.

                        I had a conversation with an attorney who is very
                        highly regarded for his skills in the legal system.
                        He told me that any judge will look at my demands to
                        disqualify a lawyer for lack of license and will never
                        let me win. He said, "No judge will ever allow it.
                        You are like grits of sand in the system."

                        This is coming from one willing to sharpen my appeal
                        to overturn the summary judgment against me from two
                        weeks ago. He was simply being matter of fact, at
                        least in his mind, and telling me how he views the way
                        my arguments will be handled.

                        Even more reason to disqualify the judge for lack of
                        proper oath.

                        Of course, I have not yet tried that, and I am sure
                        my reception will not be well-received. But so what!

                        Regards,

                        mn



                        > The officer's testimony does not state a charge.
                        >
                        > Did you impeach the officer ?
                        > You had a really ideal set up for doing so.

                        Not to be argumentative, but have you done this, and
                        has it worked as easily as it is expressed?

                        Cheers!

                        mn




                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                        Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
                        http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
                      • Michael Noonan
                        ... The import of Moisha s comments is to reenforce that what FF has been saying all along is something that has to be done in order to preserve one s freedom
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 8 9:25 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:

                          > To Michael Noonan and Group:
                          >
                          > Yes, keep it up. You will never learn by not
                          > practicing.
                          >

                          The import of Moisha's comments is to reenforce that
                          what FF has been saying all along is something that
                          has to be done in order to preserve one's freedom
                          from the current legal system.

                          The theme here is to take action, especially against
                          the judge, something I know I have been reluctant to
                          do, though have not admitted it sufficiently to
                          myself. And FF is right. This admits defeat before
                          even trying.

                          Thanks to all, once again.

                          mn


                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
                        • Michael Noonan
                          ... Thank you. Very apt. I am going through these responses one at a time, and my computer time has run out. This is an exceenet way to summarize this entire
                          Message 12 of 13 , Sep 8 9:30 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:

                            > I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogy
                            > for Al and Michael.
                            >

                            Thank you. Very apt. I am going through these
                            responses one at a time, and my computer time has run
                            out.

                            This is an exceenet way to summarize this entire
                            discussion.

                            Regards,

                            mn



                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                            Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
                            http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
                          • Pro Se
                            Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords no
                            Message 13 of 13 , Sep 9 8:06 AM
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as an inoperative as though it had never been passed. It is a mere nullity."
                               
                              Further, anyone who operates under such a LAW OR COLOR OF A LAW DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL!!!!! There is NO IMMUNITY FOR A CRIMINAL TRESPASS OR ANY CRIMINAL ACT FOR THAT MATTER. Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto the record. Also see OWENS vs. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE Mo. 100 S.Ct. 1398, (1982) case and
                               
                               
                              MANE vs. THIBITOUT, 100 S.Ct. 2502, (1982) case and these cases holding that there is NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONALLY RIGHTS and that Officers are deemed to be expert on the LAW and to advise to the LAW and give example of the LAW and could hardly claim ignorance of the LAW for a citizen may not use ignorance of the LAW as an excuse and it makes the LAW look incompetent for a duly sworn OFFICER to claim ignorance of the LAW, SO NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY EXISTS FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Further, Article 3 clause 1 very clearly states " JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND INFERIOR COURTS HOLD THEIR OFFICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION FOR HOLDING THEIR Office during BAD BEHAVIOR, so obviously, officers do NOT HOLD THEIR Office during bad behavior, and as such can claim no immunity from such unlawful act. SO CLEARLY, THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR IGNORING A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND YOU PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERIL IF YOU FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR LAW UNDER COLOR OF LAW. ERGO, YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR INJURY!!!! Also THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES, 230 F2d 486.


                              Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.