RE: [tips_and_tricks] Oath/license issue
- The Handyman wrote:
> If you are going to raise the oath and license issue try it this way."First things first." - FF's Mom
> There is a maxim of law, which says:
> The principal part of everything is the beginning.
> When you are made a party in any court action there has to be aYou might think, because that's the first you'd know about it, but there
> principal beginning act where you are adversely affected or made
> liable to answer or appear in an action you want to avoid. That act
> is SERVICE by a deputy sheriff.
are even more ducks that have to line up to get him to that point. And
then, since deputy sheriffs are not deemed to be specialists in the law
(if you don't believe that, try cross-examining one about law and see
what the "judge" tells you!) they may not notice that what they "served"
was a nullity for some inconspicuous technical error. It could be a
major error. It could be that you misinterpret what was "served"
assuming that because it was served, it had to have some import to it.
I once failed to notice, and responded to a mere invitation to be
prosecuted. I was such an idiot, that when I responded favorably to the
thought of being prosecuted, they decided not to prosecute and being the
bigger idiot than I was just days earlier, I insisted that I be
prosecuted! I needed to WIN! So I created the need to work hard for
nine more months instead, so friends could see something. Nobody
respects your "win" if there is no record of it!! When you win with no
contest, nobody can see how. So, to show everyone around me, I forced
myself to be prosecuted and go through the whole process through to
appeal. (None of those friends had the stamina to remain interested!)
And the paycheck anticipators loved it because I trained new employees
(they'd throw in a new prosecutor every time, with each one stammering
to the judge about how they just received this case and were unprepared)
and there were two camps in the system with one secretly cheering for me
against the other camp who wanted me hurt in the worst way. So, be
careful, just because something is served by a deputy, doesn't mean it
means anything official. Look at it and think.
Off point, this reminds me of the time a deputy came to my house to
accuse me of stealing a cat. It was around midnight too, but his excuse
for that was that was when he went on duty! I told him about the time I
called the sheriff because my former girlfriend's old boyfriend
threatened to come to my house here and steal her cat, and he actually
did it while we were both out working somewhere else. The cat
disappeared, and a few days later she received a photo of the cat and a
ransom note in the mail from this psycho who had followed her here from
New York. Anyway, the Sheriff's Department explained to me on the phone
how you cannot steal a cat in California, since a cat cannot be owned!
Cats are supposedly with people because they want to be and humans
cannot own cats in California. You can house, feed and cohabitate with
a cat, but you cannot own it, at least here. Therefore nobody can steal
one either! After I told him that, I told him that my girlfriend was
the one of us more familiar with the cats and would I like to wake her
up to speak to him about it now. No. Okay, good night. Sorry. No
problem cause cops aren't really expected to know the law!
> So why challenge the oath of theBecause here, in California, it is very obvious that he didn't take the
> judge, and offend him.
oath that changes him from being a mere neighbor (who cannot do much to
you) to a judge who can sentence you to jail or worse. Why let
unqualified people put you behind bars for a long time?? Won't you be
sitting in your cell regretting it later? I know I would be!
> His involvment is not a principal part. AtFunny, everyone else thinks he's the Boss! And most think you had to
> this point he has done you nothing.
have done SOMETHING in order to get there! It would be nice if they
were impartial, but just you being there with your name on the papers is
enough to get most to look at you in a negative light. It's bias.
> Why challenge the license of theDoesn't anyone worry about that fact offending me?! There was a time
> attorney knowing full well that such will also offend the court
> because the Judge is also an attorney.
when Americans didn't use an bar attorney to go to court. And you still
don't need one. And many say it is bad to let them in, like James Alan
Daum, with whom I tend to agree. And again, what license? There is no
license even though the law tells me what to look for on it! I want to
look! Show me!! Or I just cannot believe you are an attorney with
standing to involve yourself in any case in which I am a party. I
refuse to take someone else's word for it too. If it must be shown by
"endorsement on the license" then the license must be physical. Maybe
that's too much logic for the people currently anticipating paychecks
even though they will also need an endorsement upon the reverse of that
document as well in order to receive their irredeemable fiat paper!
> Don't file an answer whenHandyman is right about how you should disqualify the deputy before the
> served.. file an EXCEPTION. Take exception to the service. Challenge
> the service act being made by a deputy with no recorded oath, or a
> defective oath. Demand a show cause hearing and subpoena deuces tecum
> the deputy's oath of office. Put him on the stand, under oath, and
> drill him about "this state" and to what "United States" his oath is
> given. Place his oath into evidence. Then ask him how he is paid for
> his services. Not how much he is paid but how and with what he is
> paid! With proper questions you will establish on the record that his
> oath is either defected upon its face or invalid because he took an
> oath to support Article 1, Section 10 and has broken that oath by
> making paper a tender in payment of debt. He will have to admit that
> he accepted a paper check. He will have to admit that he converted a
> paper check into paper notes (FRNs). He will have to admit that he did
> not receive lawful money. He will have to admit that he did not
> receive PUBLIC money. He will have to admit that he made PRIVATE
> money a tender in payment of debt. That is a violation of his oath
> and it invalidates his oath. This is far easier than attacking the
> judge's oath or the attorney's license. Save those issues for the
> next appearance if there be one. When you challenge the Judge's oath
> or attorney's license it is all argument. Nothing is entered into
> evidence. If the Judge rules that service was complete. Take
> exception to his ruling and don't discuss another thing. Request a
> stay of the proceeding pending an interlocutory Appeal. File your
> brief and allege that the oath is either defective or the deputy is
> acting outside the constitution. You may never hear from the
> opposition or the appellate court or the court may find an small error
> other than what you raised. If the judge proceeds to judgment without
> a stay you have been denied due process and a new trial will be
> ordered. They will then have to reserve the petition and may never do
> so. But if they do you can always raise the defective oath of the
> Judge and inability of the attorney to produce a license while the
> appellate's court's decision it presented to the State Supreme Court
> for certioari. If the Supreme Court passes on the issue you have a
> right to bring the issue into federal court as you exhausted all state
> remedies. You may also find in your statutes, as I did, that where
> there is no constitutional oath there is no office and that a salary
> of an appointed or elected officer begins with a valid oath. The
> state will never let the issue get into the federal court system. No
> federal judge wants to discuss Article 1, Section 10 money, oaths and
> attorney's license.. The Handyman
judge. You disqualify everyone as they enter into your affairs. Don't
forget the clerk too. But even before the deputy enters in, others had
to do things correctly, and what are the odds of that today?! Hah!
"The complaint" is the very first thing that begins a case, that brings
it into existence. It is also known as "the complainant's complaint"
versus the DA's complaint. The DA's complaint has to come second to the
first complaint of the injured party. Guess what? Many times there is
no injured party or first complaint. Many times a fake DA's complaint,
unsigned, will be shown the victim in the courtroom and he will be asked
how he pleads and when he does, he prosecutes himself! Instead, he
should say something like, "didn't anyone here notice this isn't signed
by anyone?! Do you think I'm stupid enough to prosecute myself, or what?
Who is responsible for summoning me to court over a nullity like this?"
Actually, here in California, if a victim of the revenue enhancement
scheme doesn't want to be prosecuted, he has to make some objections
along the way, even though it will make him stand out as a "1
percenter". Section 988 of the Penal Code, on arraignments, says the
defendant has to be curious enough to want to see the complaint and ask
for a "true copy" which obviously would have to be signed and contain
other indicia of being an official document. But brain dead defendants
who the system wants off the streets and acting as a source of funds for
the private prison industry will fail to demand a proper arraignment,
and they will believe whatever they are told on the way to jail by their
So, right, do not wait to make the judge the first person you
disqualify. Make the deputy who serves you the first person you
disqualify. Then disqualify the judge. If you want to get picky, you
can try to disqualify the court clerk first so the complaint never
reaches a judge. But then, only AFTER you cannot disqualify all the
people they use against you in the court (deputy sheriff, court clerk,
judge, court reporter) disqualify the complaint that they all think
empowers them. If it doesn't really exist, then they aren't really
there. It would all be a show for the believers in the audience. And
that's exactly what it is!
Here's the bottom line on disqualifications: you try them, and if you
proceed through the whole process without surrendering or quitting and
you still fail, you know you have qualified people in the roles arrayed
against you. Tell me when that happens, and you'll be the first I've
ever heard about!