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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] OATH - proof of not needed

Expand Messages
  • John Wilde
    The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office. That is what
    Message 1 of 26 , May 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.  That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona.  This is no presumption of regularity in this area.

          Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes.  Once it gets into lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer oaths.

      g'day
      John Wilde

      Ed wrote:

      Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or are you referring to just the text of the Oath? It is in the Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
      www.informed.org
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: WW011@...
      Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
      Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
       How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public servant ) that
      arrested me



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
       

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    • Lewis Mohr
      Every jurisdiction is different. Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about
      Message 2 of 26 , May 26, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Every jurisdiction is different.  Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about December 10, 2001.  Prior to then all statements of officer and Offical oaths were kept in the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE in Austin.  It is still a good source to check.    Sometimes the commissioners court will keep some of the county oaths.  Appointed officer oaths are usually kept within the agency making the appointment, and that is how the Dallas pd handles it through a public information office on the 4th floor or their building on Commerce street. 

        John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
        The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
        (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
        That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
        presumption of regularity in this area.

        Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath
        prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes. Once it gets into
        lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and
        is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer
        oaths.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        Ed wrote:

        > Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need
        > to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the
        > position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or
        > are you referring to just the text of the Oath? It is in the
        > Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
        > www.informed.org
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: WW011@...
        > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
        > Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re:
        > [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
        > How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public
        > servant ) that
        > arrested me
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT
        [Click Here!]

        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
      • ewam44
        If you get some satisfaction from finding that the Official did not raise their hand and swear to their Oath or signed a piece of paper acknowledging they know
        Message 3 of 26 , May 27, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          If you get some satisfaction from finding that the Official did not
          raise their hand and swear to their Oath or signed a piece of paper
          acknowledging they know the Oath then go for it. However; If they
          have accepteted compensation for the position they have given
          implied consent to be bound by the terms of the Oath. So why bother
          with the exercise? ENFORCE the Oath whether they have signed it or
          sworn to it in a formal proceeding.

          John - I do not understand what you are saying in regard to the Oath
          in Arizona. Are you trying to place an additional burden on the
          citizen/person? Are you trying to give the Judge another out? Are
          you implying a Judge can accept pay from us, the taxpayers, but as
          long as they do not sign a piece of paper saying they have taken
          their Oath that they have no responsbility to abide by the law? This
          makes no sense to me. If a person has accepted pay for the position,
          or job, they have entered into an implied contract if not an
          explicit one. They are BOUND by the oath whether their signature is
          one the Oath or not. Why would you sasy otherwise? John Wilde - Are
          you a Judge looking for an escape from your responsiblity and that
          of other Judges?

          Ed
          www.informed.org
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
        • tthor.geo
          Yeah, de facto entities hiding behind the Presumption of regularity just do not work for me, so I have been working on ways to defeat the presumptions. If one
          Message 4 of 26 , May 28, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Yeah, de facto entities hiding behind the Presumption of regularity
            just do not work for me, so I have been working on ways to defeat the
            presumptions.

            If one wishes to lay some groundwork for the demand for proof of an
            oath, an affidavit of law of the case may be helpful. Once one gets
            the law [well, statutes at least] into the record by properly filing
            it BEFORE the case goes to arraignment, I THINK it becomes the law of
            the case. [Why do you think there is so much time between the issuing
            of a [traffic anyway] ticket/citation and the scheduled appearance;
            it's the time you use to cover yourself! If one gets to court with no
            defense in the Record, one is cooked already.] The opposing attorney
            MAY be helpless by the time the time for arraignment arrives.

            These formats may/may not work in any other state that California, but
            they should give somebody some neat ideas:

            http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oaths.html
            http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oathofoffice.html

            Forget the form/format and feel free to built on the substance.

            John Wilde <jpwilde@i...> wrote:
            > The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
            > (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
            > That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
            > presumption of regularity in this area.
          • Frank Taucher
            hi lewis the concept is that the oath, commission, bond and other bona fides should be filed so that the People may readily view them in other words, state
            Message 5 of 26 , May 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
               
              hi lewis
               
              the concept is that the oath, commission, bond and other bona fides should be filed so that the People may readily view them
               
              in other words, state officers should file them with the Secretary of State and county officers with the county clerk
               
              regards
              ft
               
               
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Lewis Mohr [mailto:lewismohr2002@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:04 AM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] OATH - proof of not needed

              Every jurisdiction is different.  Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about December 10, 2001.  Prior to then all statements of officer and Offical oaths were kept in the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE in Austin.  It is still a good source to check.    Sometimes the commissioners court will keep some of the county oaths.  Appointed officer oaths are usually kept within the agency making the appointment, and that is how the Dallas pd handles it through a public information office on the 4th floor or their building on Commerce street. 

              John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
              The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
              (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
              That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
              presumption of regularity in this area.

              Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath
              prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes. Once it gets into
              lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and
              is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer
              oaths.

              g'day
              John Wilde

              Ed wrote:

              > Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need
              > to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the
              > position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or
              > are you referring to just the text of the O! ath? It is in the
              > Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
              > www.informed.org
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: WW011@...
              > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
              > Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re:
              > [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
              > How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public
              > servant ) that
              > arrested me
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
              [Click Here!]

              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            • John Wilde
              They can t hold the office until they have both taken and subscribed the oath. The Constitutional oath that is, which they haven t done. As far as taking their
              Message 6 of 26 , May 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                They can't hold the office until they have both taken and subscribed the oath.
                The Constitutional oath that is, which they haven't done.

                As far as taking their pay check, anyone can do that until challenged. In
                Arizona, if the judge hasn't taken the oath properly, or any gummint official for
                that matter, you can sue to have the payments the judge received returned back to
                the gummint coffers.

                I never said that they weren't bound by their oath. I said if they are going
                to sit on the bench then they better have a valid oath, or they better not be on
                the bench PERIOD, because their acts are void without the oath, not in all
                states, but definately in Arizona. There are a couple of northern states where
                the lack of a valid oath only renders the actions of the official voidable, but
                it doesn't make them void. Call them on it when you have actual evidence of an
                invalid oath. If the judge refuses to remove himself, then go to the next
                highest court and keep pushing. The issue of what a someone can or can't do
                until a proper oath is taken is not going to be addressed until you push all of
                the buttons and that includes the good ole' boy network.

                Certainly a judge cannot be BOUND by an oath he didn't take. However, what
                that means is the judge is impersonating a judicial officer and can be sued for
                such an impersonation. The mere fact that he/she is sitting there on the bench
                pretending to be a judge is an invalid act. So it is not an escape from
                responsibility, it just means that he is liable for impersonating a judge and
                can't claim judicial immunity. If a judge is sitting with a valid oath, he can
                claim judicial immunity, even when he violates your rights, unless you can show
                he acted in absence of jurisdiction.

                So the validity of the oath determines immunity. No oath or invalid oath,
                not immune at all. Valid oath = judicial immunity, even if he/she violates your
                rights, unless he/she proceeds without jurisdiction. And remember one thing,
                violating your rights does not deprive a judge of his assertion of judicial
                immunity. You guys want to start holding judges responsible and eliminate
                judicial immunity, then get your state constitutions amended to eliminate the
                defense.

                g'day
                John Wilde

                ewam44 wrote:

                > If you get some satisfaction from finding that the Official did not
                > raise their hand and swear to their Oath or signed a piece of paper
                > acknowledging they know the Oath then go for it. However; If they
                > have accepteted compensation for the position they have given
                > implied consent to be bound by the terms of the Oath. So why bother
                > with the exercise? ENFORCE the Oath whether they have signed it or
                > sworn to it in a formal proceeding.
                >
                > John - I do not understand what you are saying in regard to the Oath
                > in Arizona. Are you trying to place an additional burden on the
                > citizen/person? Are you trying to give the Judge another out? Are
                > you implying a Judge can accept pay from us, the taxpayers, but as
                > long as they do not sign a piece of paper saying they have taken
                > their Oath that they have no responsbility to abide by the law? This
                > makes no sense to me. If a person has accepted pay for the position,
                > or job, they have entered into an implied contract if not an
                > explicit one. They are BOUND by the oath whether their signature is
                > one the Oath or not. Why would you sasy otherwise? John Wilde - Are
                > you a Judge looking for an escape from your responsiblity and that
                > of other Judges?
                >
                > Ed
                > www.informed.org
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
                >
                >
                > 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/
              • Frank Taucher
                hi thomas i totally concur with you here the courts have determined that the presumption is rebuttable, but must be rebutted up front or else the claim is
                Message 7 of 26 , May 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  hi thomas

                  i totally concur with you here

                  the courts have determined that the presumption is rebuttable, but must be
                  rebutted up front or else the claim is waived and the imperfection is
                  perfected

                  a negative averment filed into the court file prior to the initial hearing
                  is, imho, most important

                  now evidence is created in the file and becomes part of the record

                  the judge now doesn'thave a chance to exclude it or prevent its introduction
                  because of his discretionary authroity

                  one bit of caution, however

                  make sure and get a certified copy of the document filed with the court's
                  time stamp affixed to prevent "alterations" to the record

                  regards
                  ft

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: tthor.geo [mailto:tthor.geo@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 01:36 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                  Yeah, de facto entities hiding behind the Presumption of regularity
                  just do not work for me, so I have been working on ways to defeat the
                  presumptions.

                  If one wishes to lay some groundwork for the demand for proof of an
                  oath, an affidavit of law of the case may be helpful. Once one gets
                  the law [well, statutes at least] into the record by properly filing
                  it BEFORE the case goes to arraignment, I THINK it becomes the law of
                  the case. [Why do you think there is so much time between the issuing
                  of a [traffic anyway] ticket/citation and the scheduled appearance;
                  it's the time you use to cover yourself! If one gets to court with no
                  defense in the Record, one is cooked already.] The opposing attorney
                  MAY be helpless by the time the time for arraignment arrives.

                  These formats may/may not work in any other state that California, but
                  they should give somebody some neat ideas:

                  http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oaths.html
                  http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oathofoffice.html

                  Forget the form/format and feel free to built on the substance.

                  John Wilde <jpwilde@i...> wrote:
                  > The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
                  > (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
                  > That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
                  > presumption of regularity in this area.






                  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/
                • *
                  I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle, it is not whether or not the judge or whoever we are speaking about is bound to the oath by assuming
                  Message 8 of 26 , May 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle, it is not whether or
                    not the "judge" or whoever we are speaking about is bound to the oath by
                    assuming the position and accepting compensation, it is that if they have
                    not taken the oath as required, they do not "legally" hold the position and
                    all of their actions are void. I believe that is the theory on the lack of
                    an oath.

                    I know someone who was a deputy sheriff in Delaware, there the newly elected
                    sheriff (after taking his oath)is supposed to give the oath again to all
                    deputies as their authority is derived from him. He also has to sign all
                    the new deputy ID cards or the deputies have no legal authority. After
                    someone pointed this out while my friend was working there, they called in
                    all the deputies (on and off duty), administered the oath and gave them all
                    new ID cards.

                    As the deputies with no properly administered oath and properly signed ID
                    had not legal authority, a judge with no oath is not a judge.

                    Gary

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: ewam44 [mailto:ED44@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:04 PM
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Why bother finding their signature? Re: OATH
                    - proof of not needed


                    If you get some satisfaction from finding that the Official did not
                    raise their hand and swear to their Oath or signed a piece of paper
                    acknowledging they know the Oath then go for it. However; If they
                    have accepteted compensation for the position they have given
                    implied consent to be bound by the terms of the Oath. So why bother
                    with the exercise? ENFORCE the Oath whether they have signed it or
                    sworn to it in a formal proceeding.

                    John - I do not understand what you are saying in regard to the Oath
                    in Arizona. Are you trying to place an additional burden on the
                    citizen/person? Are you trying to give the Judge another out? Are
                    you implying a Judge can accept pay from us, the taxpayers, but as
                    long as they do not sign a piece of paper saying they have taken
                    their Oath that they have no responsbility to abide by the law? This
                    makes no sense to me. If a person has accepted pay for the position,
                    or job, they have entered into an implied contract if not an
                    explicit one. They are BOUND by the oath whether their signature is
                    one the Oath or not. Why would you sasy otherwise? John Wilde - Are
                    you a Judge looking for an escape from your responsiblity and that
                    of other Judges?

                    Ed
                    www.informed.org
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw








                    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/
                  • Frank Taucher
                    hi elementalfire@netzero.net although much of what you say seemingly is true, when the defacto doctrine is applied, the acts of the officer, though rendered
                    Message 9 of 26 , May 29, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      hi elementalfire@...

                      although much of what you say seemingly is true, when the defacto doctrine
                      is applied, the acts of the officer, though rendered without authority,
                      become valid

                      regards
                      ft



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: * [mailto:elementalfire@...]
                      Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 08:39 PM
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Why bother finding their signature? Re:
                      OATH - proof of not needed


                      I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle, it is not whether or
                      not the "judge" or whoever we are speaking about is bound to the oath by
                      assuming the position and accepting compensation, it is that if they have
                      not taken the oath as required, they do not "legally" hold the position and
                      all of their actions are void. I believe that is the theory on the lack of
                      an oath.

                      I know someone who was a deputy sheriff in Delaware, there the newly elected
                      sheriff (after taking his oath)is supposed to give the oath again to all
                      deputies as their authority is derived from him. He also has to sign all
                      the new deputy ID cards or the deputies have no legal authority. After
                      someone pointed this out while my friend was working there, they called in
                      all the deputies (on and off duty), administered the oath and gave them all
                      new ID cards.

                      As the deputies with no properly administered oath and properly signed ID
                      had not legal authority, a judge with no oath is not a judge.

                      Gary

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: ewam44 [mailto:ED44@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:04 PM
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Why bother finding their signature? Re: OATH
                      - proof of not needed


                      If you get some satisfaction from finding that the Official did not
                      raise their hand and swear to their Oath or signed a piece of paper
                      acknowledging they know the Oath then go for it. However; If they
                      have accepteted compensation for the position they have given
                      implied consent to be bound by the terms of the Oath. So why bother
                      with the exercise? ENFORCE the Oath whether they have signed it or
                      sworn to it in a formal proceeding.

                      John - I do not understand what you are saying in regard to the Oath
                      in Arizona. Are you trying to place an additional burden on the
                      citizen/person? Are you trying to give the Judge another out? Are
                      you implying a Judge can accept pay from us, the taxpayers, but as
                      long as they do not sign a piece of paper saying they have taken
                      their Oath that they have no responsbility to abide by the law? This
                      makes no sense to me. If a person has accepted pay for the position,
                      or job, they have entered into an implied contract if not an
                      explicit one. They are BOUND by the oath whether their signature is
                      one the Oath or not. Why would you sasy otherwise? John Wilde - Are
                      you a Judge looking for an escape from your responsiblity and that
                      of other Judges?

                      Ed
                      www.informed.org
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw








                      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/








                      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/
                    • Frog Farmer
                      The oath issue has been the favorite of myself and a friend of mine here (California) for about 20 years. I contend that I cannot distinguish nosey arrogant
                      Message 10 of 26 , May 29, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The "oath issue" has been the favorite of myself and a
                        friend of mine here (California) for about 20 years. I
                        contend that I cannot distinguish nosey arrogant neighbors
                        from former naughty classmates impersonating officers, from
                        dejure officers of the lawful government, without referring
                        to the indicia of office found in the state constitution.
                        Here in California, I have failed to qualify as an officer
                        any nosey arrogant neighbor or former naughty classmate by
                        finding on file a record that they had taken the required
                        oath of office. No one has come forward to demonstrate the
                        existence of "public officers" by showing that there exists
                        anyone in compliance with state constitutional requirements
                        for holding any office. Since I know this, I don't have
                        occasion to file papers in any court, since finding
                        qualified officers is an exercise in futility. As such, I
                        realize that there is no officer. I have yet to find many
                        other humans capable of understanding the ramifications of
                        such knowledge. Even after I tell people, they go off
                        thinking that there are officers all around them. Many will
                        treat known impersonators as though their status was as they
                        portray, to their own detriment. Many express fear that the
                        impersonators have guns. Heck, many people have guns, but
                        that doesn't mean they go around shooting people. Many
                        imagine just enough to justify their own cowardly behavior
                        in the face of mere neighbors impersonating officers in a
                        climate of widespread lawlessness in a vacuum of legitimate
                        government. Just as some kulaks in the Russian hinterlands
                        still feared the coming of the commissar even after the fall
                        of the old Soviet government, some Americans still cower in
                        fear of their impersonating neighbors and former classmates
                        who merely have found a way to get a regular paycheck after
                        the dissolution of lawful governments here. It may take
                        years before Americans can organize lawful governments
                        again, peopled by conscious literate humans who have a sense
                        of duty to people and country, and not to whatever is
                        necessary to perpetuate a series of paychecks they can
                        redeem for imaginary money.

                        Frank Taucher wrote:


                        > the courts have determined that the presumption is
                        > rebuttable, but must be
                        > rebutted up front or else the claim is waived and the
                        > imperfection is perfected
                        >
                        > a negative averment filed into the court file prior to the
                        > initial hearing, is imho, most important


                        In my opinion, it's too late. "Up Front" is really when an
                        impersonator first communicates with you, in this legal
                        vaccuum of no officers, YOU make the impersonator into an
                        officer for YOU when he says, "I am the Queen of England"
                        and you humor him by saying, "your Majesty..." I say, "My
                        dear sir, are we neighbors?" If he or she then claims some
                        "special status", I remind them of my years of diligent
                        study trying to find a qualified officer, and of my failure
                        to do so for longer than they have collected the paycheck,
                        and I tell them of my prediliction to lay hands upon them
                        and arrest them for impersonating an officer, but in this
                        case, because I have better things to do, I will let them
                        off with a stern warning not to try it again with me. I
                        explain the way countries go lawless, as seen in Russia and
                        Iraq, when legitimate governments are suddenly vanished
                        without legitimate replacements, and that it has already
                        happened here, but just like in Russia and Iraq, there are
                        many who do not yet realize what has occurred and act as
                        though everything is the same as it used to be. Vanished
                        governments don't usually send out announcements of their
                        demise - it's something only the observant become aware of.

                        Why would I need to file paper with another impersonator
                        when Impersonator Number One can report to his American
                        Mafia Boss what I have said? I try to qualify every face
                        that gets in my face, and have failed for 20 years. Every
                        impostor has so far gone on his way, without rendering to me
                        the services of an officer (since I have much evidence of
                        crimes to turn over to the first officer I find! - it might
                        take days for me to be fully debriefed!).

                        > now evidence is created in the file and becomes part of
                        > the record

                        I beat your evidence in by days and hours, and I don't even
                        have to file it! Here, I have nobody to file it with!
                        Impostors and impersonators have taken over, going through
                        the motions for the paychecks paying debt only! The goons
                        report my evidence for me. The bosses know that I present
                        no threat to their control of the sheeple who will call them
                        "officer" even after being shown the truth!

                        > the judge now doesn't have a chance to exclude it or
                        > prevent its introduction
                        > because of his discretionary authroity

                        Here, we have no judges, just impersonators. I cannot even
                        file to "disqualify the judge"! WHAT JUDGE!?? If I move to
                        disqualify the arrogant neighbor who is not really
                        qualified, is that not the same as saying that until he is
                        disqualified, he is qualified?? Why do Americans DO that?!

                        > one bit of caution, however
                        >
                        > make sure and get a certified copy of the document filed
                        > with the court's
                        > time stamp affixed to prevent "alterations" to the record

                        Maybe where you are, there are some legitimate officers, but
                        not in California, Oregon or Washington. I'll grant you
                        though, some kulaks still fear the annual visit of the
                        commissar who no longer exists.
                      • micro mann
                        Yes Tom and you are her (county Clerk) boss the duly elected County Judge of Dallas County. -- ... DATE: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:03:45 From: Lewis Mohr
                        Message 11 of 26 , May 30, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Yes Tom and you are her (county Clerk) boss the duly elected County Judge

                          of Dallas County.

                           

                           

                          --
                          
                          --------- Original Message ---------
                          DATE: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:03:45
                          From: Lewis Mohr <lewismohr2002@...>
                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          Cc:

                          Every jurisdiction is different.  Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about December 10, 2001.  Prior to then all statements of officer and Offical oaths were kept in the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE in Austin.  It is still a good source to check.    Sometimes the commissioners court will keep some of the county oaths.  Appointed officer oaths are usually kept within the agency making the appointment, and that is how the Dallas pd handles it through a public information office on the 4th floor or their building on Commerce street. 

                          John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
                          The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
                          (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
                          That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
                          presumption of regularity in this area.

                          Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath
                          prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes. Once it gets into
                          lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and
                          is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer
                          oaths.

                          g'day
                          John Wilde

                          Ed wrote:

                          > Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need
                          > to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the
                          > position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or
                          > are you referring to just the text of the Oath ? It is in the
                          > Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
                          > www.informed.org
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: WW011@...
                          > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
                          > Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re:
                          > [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
                          > How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public
                          > servant ) that
                          > arrested me
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT
                          [Click Here!]

                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                          ____________________________________________________________
                          Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
                          Login To Lycos Mail
                        • Lewis Mohr
                          I must have 12 sovereign justices in order to convene the court. Lewis -o- micro mann wrote: Yes Tom and you are her (county Clerk)
                          Message 12 of 26 , May 30, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I must have 12 sovereign justices in order to convene the court.  Lewis  -o-

                            micro mann <micromann1@...> wrote:

                            Yes Tom and you are her (county Clerk) boss the duly elected County Judge

                            of Dallas County.

                             

                             

                            --
                            
                            --------- Original Message ---------
                            DATE: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:03:45
                            From: Lewis Mohr <lewismohr2002@...>
                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            Cc:

                            Every jurisdiction is different.  Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about December 10, 2001.  Prior to then all statements of officer and Offical oaths were kept in the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE in Austin.  It is still a good source to check.    Sometimes the commissioners court will keep some of the county oaths.  Appointed officer oaths are usually kept within the agency making the appointment, and that is how the Dallas pd handles it through a public information office on the 4th floor or their building on Commerce street. 

                            John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
                            The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
                            (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
                            That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
                            presumption of regularity in this area.

                            Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath
                            prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes. Once it gets into
                            lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and
                            is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer
                            oaths.

                            g'day
                            John Wilde

                            Ed wrote:

                            > Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need
                            > to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the
                            > position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or
                            > are you referring to just the text of the Oath ? It is in the
                            > Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
                            > www.informed.org
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: WW011@...
                            > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
                            > Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re:
                            > [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
                            > How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public
                            > servant ) that
                            > arrested me
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            ADVERTISEMENT
                            [Click Here!]

                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                            ____________________________________________________________
                            Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
                            Login To Lycos Mail

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                          • Frank Taucher
                            hi frog farmer good to see you hangin around again i agree with you on the psq in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of original jurisdiction and is
                            Message 13 of 26 , May 30, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              hi frog farmer

                              good to see you hangin' around again

                              i agree with you on the psq

                              in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of original jurisdiction and
                              is where the Sovereign conducts his court

                              it is thus where the record is established which is thereafter reviewed in
                              all downstream proceedings, should there be any

                              obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction and authority up
                              front, it becomes obvious to the informed that any further proceedings
                              without bona fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                              proceeding establishes all that follows as without authority

                              the situation i was responding to involved a matter in which the bona fides
                              had not been challenged by charles in the initial contact (at least, that's
                              how i understand the matter)

                              hence, this is the next chance to correct the record before the hearing

                              therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed into the record
                              is the correct course of action

                              return of the charging instrument would have also been appropriate had it
                              been timely performed

                              even now, however, it would be better to correct the record and return the
                              instrument than not, imho

                              further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope or trespass upon
                              the action, the bona fides should be challenged immediately, the person
                              qualified, and an affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                              regards
                              ft





                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                              Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 01:41 AM
                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                              The "oath issue" has been the favorite of myself and a
                              friend of mine here (California) for about 20 years. I
                              contend that I cannot distinguish nosey arrogant neighbors
                              from former naughty classmates impersonating officers, from
                              dejure officers of the lawful government, without referring
                              to the indicia of office found in the state constitution.
                              Here in California, I have failed to qualify as an officer
                              any nosey arrogant neighbor or former naughty classmate by
                              finding on file a record that they had taken the required
                              oath of office. No one has come forward to demonstrate the
                              existence of "public officers" by showing that there exists
                              anyone in compliance with state constitutional requirements
                              for holding any office. Since I know this, I don't have
                              occasion to file papers in any court, since finding
                              qualified officers is an exercise in futility. As such, I
                              realize that there is no officer. I have yet to find many
                              other humans capable of understanding the ramifications of
                              such knowledge. Even after I tell people, they go off
                              thinking that there are officers all around them. Many will
                              treat known impersonators as though their status was as they
                              portray, to their own detriment. Many express fear that the
                              impersonators have guns. Heck, many people have guns, but
                              that doesn't mean they go around shooting people. Many
                              imagine just enough to justify their own cowardly behavior
                              in the face of mere neighbors impersonating officers in a
                              climate of widespread lawlessness in a vacuum of legitimate
                              government. Just as some kulaks in the Russian hinterlands
                              still feared the coming of the commissar even after the fall
                              of the old Soviet government, some Americans still cower in
                              fear of their impersonating neighbors and former classmates
                              who merely have found a way to get a regular paycheck after
                              the dissolution of lawful governments here. It may take
                              years before Americans can organize lawful governments
                              again, peopled by conscious literate humans who have a sense
                              of duty to people and country, and not to whatever is
                              necessary to perpetuate a series of paychecks they can
                              redeem for imaginary money.

                              Frank Taucher wrote:


                              > the courts have determined that the presumption is
                              > rebuttable, but must be
                              > rebutted up front or else the claim is waived and the
                              > imperfection is perfected
                              >
                              > a negative averment filed into the court file prior to the
                              > initial hearing, is imho, most important


                              In my opinion, it's too late. "Up Front" is really when an
                              impersonator first communicates with you, in this legal
                              vaccuum of no officers, YOU make the impersonator into an
                              officer for YOU when he says, "I am the Queen of England"
                              and you humor him by saying, "your Majesty..." I say, "My
                              dear sir, are we neighbors?" If he or she then claims some
                              "special status", I remind them of my years of diligent
                              study trying to find a qualified officer, and of my failure
                              to do so for longer than they have collected the paycheck,
                              and I tell them of my prediliction to lay hands upon them
                              and arrest them for impersonating an officer, but in this
                              case, because I have better things to do, I will let them
                              off with a stern warning not to try it again with me. I
                              explain the way countries go lawless, as seen in Russia and
                              Iraq, when legitimate governments are suddenly vanished
                              without legitimate replacements, and that it has already
                              happened here, but just like in Russia and Iraq, there are
                              many who do not yet realize what has occurred and act as
                              though everything is the same as it used to be. Vanished
                              governments don't usually send out announcements of their
                              demise - it's something only the observant become aware of.

                              Why would I need to file paper with another impersonator
                              when Impersonator Number One can report to his American
                              Mafia Boss what I have said? I try to qualify every face
                              that gets in my face, and have failed for 20 years. Every
                              impostor has so far gone on his way, without rendering to me
                              the services of an officer (since I have much evidence of
                              crimes to turn over to the first officer I find! - it might
                              take days for me to be fully debriefed!).

                              > now evidence is created in the file and becomes part of
                              > the record

                              I beat your evidence in by days and hours, and I don't even
                              have to file it! Here, I have nobody to file it with!
                              Impostors and impersonators have taken over, going through
                              the motions for the paychecks paying debt only! The goons
                              report my evidence for me. The bosses know that I present
                              no threat to their control of the sheeple who will call them
                              "officer" even after being shown the truth!

                              > the judge now doesn't have a chance to exclude it or
                              > prevent its introduction
                              > because of his discretionary authroity

                              Here, we have no judges, just impersonators. I cannot even
                              file to "disqualify the judge"! WHAT JUDGE!?? If I move to
                              disqualify the arrogant neighbor who is not really
                              qualified, is that not the same as saying that until he is
                              disqualified, he is qualified?? Why do Americans DO that?!

                              > one bit of caution, however
                              >
                              > make sure and get a certified copy of the document filed
                              > with the court's
                              > time stamp affixed to prevent "alterations" to the record

                              Maybe where you are, there are some legitimate officers, but
                              not in California, Oregon or Washington. I'll grant you
                              though, some kulaks still fear the annual visit of the
                              commissar who no longer exists.










                              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/
                            • Frog Farmer
                              The oath issue has been the favorite of myself and a friend of mine here (California) for about 20 years. I contend that I cannot distinguish nosey arrogant
                              Message 14 of 26 , May 30, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The "oath issue" has been the favorite of myself and a
                                friend of mine here (California) for about 20 years. I
                                contend that I cannot distinguish nosey arrogant neighbors
                                from former naughty classmates impersonating officers, from
                                dejure officers of the lawful government, without referring
                                to the indicia of office found in the state constitution.
                                Here in California, I have failed to qualify as an officer
                                any nosey arrogant neighbor or former naughty classmate by
                                finding on file a record that they had taken the required
                                oath of office. No one has come forward to demonstrate the
                                existence of "public officers" by showing that there exists
                                anyone in compliance with state constitutional requirements
                                for holding any office. Since I know this, I don't have
                                occasion to file papers in any court, since finding
                                qualified officers is an exercise in futility. As such, I
                                realize that there is no officer. I have yet to find many
                                other humans capable of understanding the ramifications of
                                such knowledge. Even after I tell people, they go off
                                thinking that there are officers all around them. Many will
                                treat known impersonators as though their status was as they
                                portray, to their own detriment. Many express fear that the
                                impersonators have guns. Heck, many people have guns, but
                                that doesn't mean they go around shooting people. Many
                                imagine just enough to justify their own cowardly behavior
                                in the face of mere neighbors impersonating officers in a
                                climate of widespread lawlessness in a vacuum of legitimate
                                government. Just as some kulaks in the Russian hinterlands
                                still feared the coming of the commissar even after the fall
                                of the old Soviet government, some Americans still cower in
                                fear of their impersonating neighbors and former classmates
                                who merely have found a way to get a regular paycheck after
                                the dissolution of lawful governments here. It may take
                                years before Americans can organize lawful governments
                                again, peopled by conscious literate humans who have a sense
                                of duty to people and country, and not to whatever is
                                necessary to perpetuate a series of paychecks they can
                                redeem for imaginary money.

                                Frank Taucher wrote:


                                > the courts have determined that the presumption is
                                > rebuttable, but must be
                                > rebutted up front or else the claim is waived and the
                                > imperfection is perfected
                                >
                                > a negative averment filed into the court file prior to the
                                > initial hearing, is imho, most important


                                In my opinion, it's too late. "Up Front" is really when an
                                impersonator first communicates with you, in this legal
                                vaccuum of no officers, YOU make the impersonator into an
                                officer for YOU when he says, "I am the Queen of England"
                                and you humor him by saying, "your Majesty..." I say, "My
                                dear sir, are we neighbors?" If he or she then claims some
                                "special status", I remind them of my years of diligent
                                study trying to find a qualified officer, and of my failure
                                to do so for longer than they have collected the paycheck,
                                and I tell them of my prediliction to lay hands upon them
                                and arrest them for impersonating an officer, but in this
                                case, because I have better things to do, I will let them
                                off with a stern warning not to try it again with me. I
                                explain the way countries go lawless, as seen in Russia and
                                Iraq, when legitimate governments are suddenly vanished
                                without legitimate replacements, and that it has already
                                happened here, but just like in Russia and Iraq, there are
                                many who do not yet realize what has occurred and act as
                                though everything is the same as it used to be. Vanished
                                governments don't usually send out announcements of their
                                demise - it's something only the observant become aware of.

                                Why would I need to file paper with another impersonator
                                when Impersonator Number One can report to his American
                                Mafia Boss what I have said? I try to qualify every face
                                that gets in my face, and have failed for 20 years. Every
                                impostor has so far gone on his way, without rendering to me
                                the services of an officer (since I have much evidence of
                                crimes to turn over to the first officer I find! - it might
                                take days for me to be fully debriefed!).

                                > now evidence is created in the file and becomes part of
                                > the record

                                I beat your evidence in by days and hours, and I don't even
                                have to file it! Here, I have nobody to file it with!
                                Impostors and impersonators have taken over, going through
                                the motions for the paychecks paying debt only! The goons
                                report my evidence for me. The bosses know that I present
                                no threat to their control of the sheeple who will call them
                                "officer" even after being shown the truth!

                                > the judge now doesn't have a chance to exclude it or
                                > prevent its introduction
                                > because of his discretionary authroity

                                Here, we have no judges, just impersonators. I cannot even
                                file to "disqualify the judge"! WHAT JUDGE!?? If I move to
                                disqualify the arrogant neighbor who is not really
                                qualified, is that not the same as saying that until he is
                                disqualified, he is qualified?? Why do Americans DO that?!

                                > one bit of caution, however
                                >
                                > make sure and get a certified copy of the document filed
                                > with the court's
                                > time stamp affixed to prevent "alterations" to the record

                                Maybe where you are, there are some legitimate officers, but
                                not in California, Oregon or Washington. I'll grant you
                                though, some kulaks still fear the annual visit of the
                                commissar who no longer exists.
                              • micro mann
                                Judge Tom Mohr, Dallas county Judge There s more to it than just convening court. If you build the court the sovereigns will come! You are going to have to
                                Message 15 of 26 , May 31, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Judge Tom Mohr, Dallas county Judge

                                  There's more to it than just convening court.

                                  If you build the court the sovereigns will come!

                                  You are going to have to walk before you run!!

                                  Sounds like excuses to me!! 

                                  We need our judge to stand up and occupy his position and everything else will take care of itself!

                                   


                                   

                                   

                                  --
                                  
                                  --------- Original Message ---------
                                  DATE: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:32:54
                                  From: Lewis Mohr <lewismohr2002@...>
                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  Cc:

                                  I must have 12 sovereign justices in order to convene the court.  Lewis  -o-

                                  micro mann <micromann1@...> wrote:

                                  Yes Tom and you are her (county Clerk) boss the duly elected County Judge

                                  of Dallas County.

                                   

                                   

                                  --
                                  
                                  --------- Original Message ---------
                                  DATE: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:03:45
                                  From: Lewis Mohr <lewismohr2002@...>
                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  Cc:

                                  Every jurisdiction is different.  Here in Dallas County the County Clerk is supposed to keep all oaths for STATE and COUNTY elected officers since about December 10, 2001.  Prior to then all statements of officer and Offical oaths were kept in the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE in Austin.  It is still a good source to check.    Sometimes the commissioners court will keep some of the county oaths.  Appointed officer oaths are usually kept within the agency making the appointment, and that is how the Dallas pd handles it through a public information office on the 4th floor or their building on Commerce street. 

                                  John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
                                  The official always has the burden of proving that he/she has both taken
                                  (oral component) and subscribed (written component) his oath of office.
                                  That is what must be done, particularly here in Arizona. This is no
                                  presumption of regularity in this area.

                                  Arizona's judges take an oath, but it is not the Constitutional Oath
                                  prescribed by ARizona's Constitution or statutes. Once it gets into
                                  lower level officials, the oath is not taken (orally) in many cases, and
                                  is not subscribed (written) before an officer authorized to administer
                                  oaths.

                                  g'day
                                  John Wilde

                                  Ed wrote:

                                  > Read the US Constitution. Read the Texas Constitution. You do NOT need
                                  > to have a copy of the Oath signed by them. If they have assumed the
                                  > position then they are under the Oath of Office for that position. Or
                                  > are you referring to just the text of the Oath ? It is in the
                                  > Constitution. You can access it through my site or many others. Ed
                                  > www.informed.org
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: WW011@...
                                  > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:15 PM
                                  > Subject: Re: Pessimistic attitudes win nothing - Re:
                                  > [tips_and_tricks] Re: need proof
                                  > How do you suppose i can get an oath of an officer (public
                                  > servant ) that
                                  > arrested me
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  ADVERTISEMENT
                                  [Click Here!]

                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                  ____________________________________________________________
                                  Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
                                  Login To Lycos Mail

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                  ____________________________________________________________
                                  Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
                                  Login To Lycos Mail
                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I quit using the PSQ because it s only
                                  Message 16 of 26 , May 31, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Frank Taucher wrote:

                                    > hi frog farmer
                                    >
                                    > good to see you hangin' around again
                                    >
                                    > i agree with you on the psq

                                    Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
                                    eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I
                                    quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
                                    Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =
                                    criminals).

                                    > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
                                    > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
                                    > conducts his court

                                    That's what I figure. I mean, there's no way I can know all
                                    my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
                                    do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
                                    things in this relatively new legal environment. If they
                                    make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
                                    it's a legitimate one or not. In fact, I think there's even
                                    a U.S. Supreme court case that says so. Dang Me! I don't
                                    remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
                                    matter anyway. Giving court citations presumes the ability
                                    of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
                                    tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
                                    the law.

                                    > it is thus where the record is established which is
                                    > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
                                    > should there be any

                                    Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted. Most
                                    people cannot comprehend that. Most make all kinds of
                                    unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
                                    their own detriment.

                                    > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
                                    > and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
                                    > informed that any further proceedings without bona
                                    > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                                    > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
                                    > authority

                                    So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
                                    too much of a "hassle" for most people. And most people do
                                    not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
                                    convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
                                    political question. They don't know what they think without
                                    a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
                                    they are silent.

                                    > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
                                    > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
                                    > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
                                    > the matter)

                                    Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
                                    disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
                                    had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
                                    evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
                                    initial contact.

                                    What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
                                    the initial confrontation? Don't they realize that failure
                                    to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
                                    to undo later?

                                    > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
                                    > before the hearing

                                    Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
                                    because the legitimate players are absent. One can PRETEND
                                    to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
                                    than facing reality.

                                    > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
                                    > into the record is the correct course of action

                                    Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly! Then I'd
                                    agree with you wholeheartedly!

                                    > return of the charging instrument would have also been
                                    > appropriate had it been timely performed

                                    Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
                                    right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
                                    not overlook abnormalities).

                                    > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
                                    > record and return the instrument than not, imho

                                    Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
                                    with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
                                    mail service. So what am I to do? Personally, I don't
                                    think things will be corrected in my own lifetime. I'm not
                                    trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
                                    the people I meet. Every year the level of literacy declines.

                                    > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
                                    > or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
                                    > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
                                    > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                                    I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
                                    I do keep my own records. But down at the office buildings
                                    that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
                                    has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
                                    prop for the believers/audience. It's very similar to the
                                    situation in the old Soviet Union. When that government
                                    collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
                                    were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
                                    figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

                                    I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
                                    here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
                                    than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
                                    (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
                                    in relative peace.

                                    They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

                                    And we all smile at each other on the streets.

                                    I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
                                    yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
                                    Listmanager" stating:

                                    Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by
                                    email.

                                    Your message was not accepted for distribution.

                                    ---

                                    What's the story on posting here?
                                  • Frank Taucher
                                    hi frog farmer i don t know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen to me i think it s got something to do with barry s filtering of the
                                    Message 17 of 26 , May 31, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      hi frog farmer

                                      i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
                                      to me

                                      i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

                                      maybe not

                                      i complained to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded

                                      with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                      they're the merrill and ryder cases

                                      didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                      handle your confrontations

                                      i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                      original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                      document along with notice

                                      but am always open to better ideas

                                      as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                      etc., i don't disagree

                                      regards
                                      ft






                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                      Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 02:38 PM
                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                      Frank Taucher wrote:

                                      > hi frog farmer
                                      >
                                      > good to see you hangin' around again
                                      >
                                      > i agree with you on the psq

                                      Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
                                      eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I
                                      quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
                                      Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =
                                      criminals).

                                      > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
                                      > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
                                      > conducts his court

                                      That's what I figure. I mean, there's no way I can know all
                                      my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
                                      do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
                                      things in this relatively new legal environment. If they
                                      make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
                                      it's a legitimate one or not. In fact, I think there's even
                                      a U.S. Supreme court case that says so. Dang Me! I don't
                                      remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
                                      matter anyway. Giving court citations presumes the ability
                                      of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
                                      tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
                                      the law.

                                      > it is thus where the record is established which is
                                      > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
                                      > should there be any

                                      Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted. Most
                                      people cannot comprehend that. Most make all kinds of
                                      unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
                                      their own detriment.

                                      > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
                                      > and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
                                      > informed that any further proceedings without bona
                                      > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                                      > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
                                      > authority

                                      So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
                                      too much of a "hassle" for most people. And most people do
                                      not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
                                      convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
                                      political question. They don't know what they think without
                                      a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
                                      they are silent.

                                      > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
                                      > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
                                      > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
                                      > the matter)

                                      Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
                                      disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
                                      had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
                                      evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
                                      initial contact.

                                      What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
                                      the initial confrontation? Don't they realize that failure
                                      to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
                                      to undo later?

                                      > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
                                      > before the hearing

                                      Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
                                      because the legitimate players are absent. One can PRETEND
                                      to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
                                      than facing reality.

                                      > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
                                      > into the record is the correct course of action

                                      Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly! Then I'd
                                      agree with you wholeheartedly!

                                      > return of the charging instrument would have also been
                                      > appropriate had it been timely performed

                                      Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
                                      right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
                                      not overlook abnormalities).

                                      > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
                                      > record and return the instrument than not, imho

                                      Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
                                      with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
                                      mail service. So what am I to do? Personally, I don't
                                      think things will be corrected in my own lifetime. I'm not
                                      trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
                                      the people I meet. Every year the level of literacy declines.

                                      > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
                                      > or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
                                      > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
                                      > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                                      I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
                                      I do keep my own records. But down at the office buildings
                                      that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
                                      has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
                                      prop for the believers/audience. It's very similar to the
                                      situation in the old Soviet Union. When that government
                                      collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
                                      were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
                                      figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

                                      I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
                                      here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
                                      than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
                                      (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
                                      in relative peace.

                                      They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

                                      And we all smile at each other on the streets.

                                      I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
                                      yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
                                      Listmanager" stating:

                                      Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by
                                      email.

                                      Your message was not accepted for distribution.

                                      ---

                                      What's the story on posting here?









                                      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/
                                    • Frog Farmer
                                      ... Thanks. ... Well, I didn t give up on it totally - I still take at least two with me when I go out, and have them in a dispenser at my front door. But I
                                      Message 18 of 26 , May 31, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Frank Taucher wrote:


                                        > with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                        > they're the merrill and ryder cases


                                        Thanks.


                                        >
                                        > didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                        > handle your confrontations


                                        Well, I didn't give up on it totally - I still take at least
                                        two with me when I go out, and have them in a dispenser at
                                        my front door. But I did quit "whipping it out" for
                                        impersonators, after I discovered the total lack of
                                        qualified personnel. After all, it's for "public servants",
                                        not every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry. I felt that just the
                                        act of presenting it was a ratification of the status for
                                        the impersonator. So, I quit presenting it unless I found a
                                        qualified recipient, and of course I never did.

                                        Actually, my confrontations have run the gamut from peaceful
                                        to armed stand-offs, from one guy to 6 cars, dog teams and
                                        helicopters. And yet each one has ended well. I've never
                                        been hauled off and put in jail except for that one time
                                        when I was a teenager and it was a total sham. There was
                                        one time when I had them wait at the curb for my counsel to
                                        arrive. That was a good one. But I really haven't had
                                        another confrontation for years, ever since my last court
                                        case in 1985. There have been three "incidents" at my
                                        house, where they tried to bluff their way in, and I didn't
                                        fall for it. A phone conversation with the hostage
                                        negotiator put it all to rest. I alluded to my files of
                                        evidence of crimes, and my readiness to discuss their
                                        matters after prior matters had been discussed, and nobody
                                        wanted to discuss prior matters. I remember asking, "you
                                        have heard of 'bad cops' haven't you? Would you like some
                                        information in that regard?"

                                        > i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                        > original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                        > document along with notice


                                        It probably does - I cannot say I know what that document
                                        says. I used to carry around a variety of Constructive
                                        Notices, and they seemed to "work" when used. But I became
                                        really disillusioned when I found out that there were NO
                                        qualified officers at all, anywhere around here. When I had
                                        started my adventures, there was a mix - there were still
                                        some old guys left over from the old days who had their
                                        stuff in order. But as time wore on, qualified officers were
                                        dying off and not being replaced. They had to fly in a real
                                        judge from Pasadena for a friend of mine, and for one of my
                                        cases they pulled in an old guy out of retirement. I caught
                                        him committing the felony of evidence tampering. The
                                        investigator I put on the case admitted that it was
                                        commonplace at that time.

                                        Since then I had decided that if captured, I would only talk
                                        to the local Provost Marshal, since I'd have to be a
                                        prisoner of a military force. Then I'd cite General Order
                                        100 and ask to be released under Sections 42 and 43.

                                        > but am always open to better ideas


                                        Me too! But as it stands today, I'd let them know that I
                                        know what I know, that there are no qualified officers, and
                                        that if they press their claims of being officers in a civil
                                        jurisdiction and they lay hands upon me, I'd be making a
                                        mutual citizen's arrest for impersonating an officer. If it
                                        progressed to me being in cuffs in the back seat, I'd ask
                                        them if they're familiar with my file and if not, why not,
                                        and tell them that if they are really officers I am giving
                                        them a "need to know" (my file is sealed open only to those
                                        with a need to know) and I'll be wanting to talk to the
                                        Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel.

                                        > as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                        > etc., i don't disagree


                                        Thanks. I was hoping I was wrong.
                                      • Bliss Alexandra
                                        i have a request in for certification of the ABSENCE of commission of dmv commissioner and relatedly an absence of bonds waiver by ny comptroller for ny
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          i have a request in for certification of the ABSENCE of commission of dmv
                                          commissioner

                                          and relatedly an absence of bonds waiver by ny comptroller for ny officers

                                          because these requests are for evidence quality certifications

                                          the FOI officers have steadfastly refused to produce them

                                          the FOI appeals officers are attorneys

                                          this is where these requests are now

                                          regards,
                                          Bliss


                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Frank Taucher [mailto:taucher@...]
                                          Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 9:50 PM
                                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed



                                          hi frog farmer

                                          i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
                                          to me

                                          i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

                                          maybe not

                                          i complained to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded

                                          with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                          they're the merrill and ryder cases

                                          didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                          handle your confrontations

                                          i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                          original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                          document along with notice

                                          but am always open to better ideas

                                          as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                          etc., i don't disagree

                                          regards
                                          ft






                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                          Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 02:38 PM
                                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                          Frank Taucher wrote:

                                          > hi frog farmer
                                          >
                                          > good to see you hangin' around again
                                          >
                                          > i agree with you on the psq

                                          Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
                                          eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I
                                          quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
                                          Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =
                                          criminals).

                                          > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
                                          > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
                                          > conducts his court

                                          That's what I figure. I mean, there's no way I can know all
                                          my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
                                          do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
                                          things in this relatively new legal environment. If they
                                          make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
                                          it's a legitimate one or not. In fact, I think there's even
                                          a U.S. Supreme court case that says so. Dang Me! I don't
                                          remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
                                          matter anyway. Giving court citations presumes the ability
                                          of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
                                          tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
                                          the law.

                                          > it is thus where the record is established which is
                                          > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
                                          > should there be any

                                          Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted. Most
                                          people cannot comprehend that. Most make all kinds of
                                          unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
                                          their own detriment.

                                          > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
                                          > and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
                                          > informed that any further proceedings without bona
                                          > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                                          > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
                                          > authority

                                          So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
                                          too much of a "hassle" for most people. And most people do
                                          not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
                                          convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
                                          political question. They don't know what they think without
                                          a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
                                          they are silent.

                                          > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
                                          > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
                                          > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
                                          > the matter)

                                          Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
                                          disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
                                          had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
                                          evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
                                          initial contact.

                                          What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
                                          the initial confrontation? Don't they realize that failure
                                          to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
                                          to undo later?

                                          > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
                                          > before the hearing

                                          Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
                                          because the legitimate players are absent. One can PRETEND
                                          to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
                                          than facing reality.

                                          > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
                                          > into the record is the correct course of action

                                          Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly! Then I'd
                                          agree with you wholeheartedly!

                                          > return of the charging instrument would have also been
                                          > appropriate had it been timely performed

                                          Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
                                          right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
                                          not overlook abnormalities).

                                          > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
                                          > record and return the instrument than not, imho

                                          Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
                                          with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
                                          mail service. So what am I to do? Personally, I don't
                                          think things will be corrected in my own lifetime. I'm not
                                          trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
                                          the people I meet. Every year the level of literacy declines.

                                          > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
                                          > or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
                                          > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
                                          > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                                          I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
                                          I do keep my own records. But down at the office buildings
                                          that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
                                          has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
                                          prop for the believers/audience. It's very similar to the
                                          situation in the old Soviet Union. When that government
                                          collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
                                          were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
                                          figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

                                          I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
                                          here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
                                          than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
                                          (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
                                          in relative peace.

                                          They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

                                          And we all smile at each other on the streets.

                                          I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
                                          yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
                                          Listmanager" stating:

                                          Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by
                                          email.

                                          Your message was not accepted for distribution.

                                          ---

                                          What's the story on posting here?









                                          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/







                                          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/
                                        • Legalbear
                                          i don t know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen to me I ve had the same thing happen to me, i.e., an email coming back saying that
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
                                            to me

                                             

                                            I’ve had the same thing happen to me, i.e., an email coming back saying that it doesn’t accept email posts.  I checked the members list looking for that email address and didn’t see it there.  When I get that response, my post still goes to the Tips list.  I haven’t spent anymore time on the issue because it just seems like an annoyance and, Yahoo Help is hard to contact.

                                            i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

                                            maybe not

                                             

                                            I monitor the list because I was asked to by list members.  I stop a lot of irrelevant posts, spam, and personal messages.  I also keep flames and profanity off the list.  I hope it’s appreciated.  I make the calls as to what makes it on the list and live with the results.

                                             

                                            Bear


                                             

                                            For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201, Aurora, CO  80013 303-481-0379 rm 107 fax 810-958-6113

                                            www.legal-research-video.com
                                            www.legalbears.com
                                            www.freedivorceforms.net
                                            http://www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch
                                            To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
                                            tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                             

                                          • Bliss Alexandra
                                            Frog Farmer said: I ll be wanting to talk to the Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel. Frog Farmer: Why are you asking for a military officer to be your
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Frog Farmer said:
                                              I'll be wanting to talk to the Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel.

                                              Frog Farmer:
                                              Why are you asking for a military officer to be your counsel?
                                              I don't get it.

                                              regards,
                                              Bliss



                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                              Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 1:36 AM
                                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                              Frank Taucher wrote:


                                              > with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                              > they're the merrill and ryder cases


                                              Thanks.


                                              >
                                              > didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                              > handle your confrontations


                                              Well, I didn't give up on it totally - I still take at least
                                              two with me when I go out, and have them in a dispenser at
                                              my front door. But I did quit "whipping it out" for
                                              impersonators, after I discovered the total lack of
                                              qualified personnel. After all, it's for "public servants",
                                              not every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry. I felt that just the
                                              act of presenting it was a ratification of the status for
                                              the impersonator. So, I quit presenting it unless I found a
                                              qualified recipient, and of course I never did.

                                              Actually, my confrontations have run the gamut from peaceful
                                              to armed stand-offs, from one guy to 6 cars, dog teams and
                                              helicopters. And yet each one has ended well. I've never
                                              been hauled off and put in jail except for that one time
                                              when I was a teenager and it was a total sham. There was
                                              one time when I had them wait at the curb for my counsel to
                                              arrive. That was a good one. But I really haven't had
                                              another confrontation for years, ever since my last court
                                              case in 1985. There have been three "incidents" at my
                                              house, where they tried to bluff their way in, and I didn't
                                              fall for it. A phone conversation with the hostage
                                              negotiator put it all to rest. I alluded to my files of
                                              evidence of crimes, and my readiness to discuss their
                                              matters after prior matters had been discussed, and nobody
                                              wanted to discuss prior matters. I remember asking, "you
                                              have heard of 'bad cops' haven't you? Would you like some
                                              information in that regard?"

                                              > i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                              > original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                              > document along with notice


                                              It probably does - I cannot say I know what that document
                                              says. I used to carry around a variety of Constructive
                                              Notices, and they seemed to "work" when used. But I became
                                              really disillusioned when I found out that there were NO
                                              qualified officers at all, anywhere around here. When I had
                                              started my adventures, there was a mix - there were still
                                              some old guys left over from the old days who had their
                                              stuff in order. But as time wore on, qualified officers were
                                              dying off and not being replaced. They had to fly in a real
                                              judge from Pasadena for a friend of mine, and for one of my
                                              cases they pulled in an old guy out of retirement. I caught
                                              him committing the felony of evidence tampering. The
                                              investigator I put on the case admitted that it was
                                              commonplace at that time.

                                              Since then I had decided that if captured, I would only talk
                                              to the local Provost Marshal, since I'd have to be a
                                              prisoner of a military force. Then I'd cite General Order
                                              100 and ask to be released under Sections 42 and 43.

                                              > but am always open to better ideas


                                              Me too! But as it stands today, I'd let them know that I
                                              know what I know, that there are no qualified officers, and
                                              that if they press their claims of being officers in a civil
                                              jurisdiction and they lay hands upon me, I'd be making a
                                              mutual citizen's arrest for impersonating an officer. If it
                                              progressed to me being in cuffs in the back seat, I'd ask
                                              them if they're familiar with my file and if not, why not,
                                              and tell them that if they are really officers I am giving
                                              them a "need to know" (my file is sealed open only to those
                                              with a need to know) and I'll be wanting to talk to the
                                              Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel.

                                              > as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                              > etc., i don't disagree


                                              Thanks. I was hoping I was wrong.





                                              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/
                                            • Frog Farmer
                                              ... Because there is no legitimate civil government where I am, and if I am taken prisoner, it is either by regular criminal kidnappers, or a conquering
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Bliss Alexandra wrote:

                                                > Frog Farmer said:
                                                > I'll be wanting to talk to the Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel.
                                                >
                                                > Frog Farmer:
                                                > Why are you asking for a military officer to be your counsel?
                                                > I don't get it.
                                                >

                                                Because there is no legitimate civil government where I am,
                                                and if I am taken prisoner, it is either by regular criminal
                                                kidnappers, or a conquering military force occupying the
                                                area. If they appear to be better funded than the usual
                                                kind of criminals, and they exhibit signs of being in a
                                                military force (uniforms, taking/issuing orders, referring
                                                to each other by rank, etc.) I'll assume the latter. I WAS
                                                expecting the first occupying force here to be Chinese, but
                                                you never know...
                                              • Frank Taucher
                                                hi bliss there s something along the lines of the consequences of failure to perform a duty one of the things you want to highlight is the difference between a
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  hi bliss

                                                  there's something along the lines of the consequences of failure to perform
                                                  a duty

                                                  one of the things you want to highlight is the difference between a
                                                  discretionary duty (deciding) and a ministerial one (executing a defined
                                                  action)

                                                  providing the requested documents would seem to be a ministerial duty

                                                  notice them of such with an affidavit attesting as to what's happened so far
                                                  and give them 10 days to perform their duty and correct the injury they've
                                                  done to you

                                                  if they still don't perform, record the completed package and then take the
                                                  record and file for a writ of mandamus and for forfeiture of office for
                                                  their lawless activity

                                                  regards
                                                  ft

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Bliss Alexandra [mailto:abliss@...]
                                                  Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 09:15 AM
                                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF
                                                  ABSENCE OF


                                                  i have a request in for certification of the ABSENCE of commission of dmv
                                                  commissioner

                                                  and relatedly an absence of bonds waiver by ny comptroller for ny officers

                                                  because these requests are for evidence quality certifications

                                                  the FOI officers have steadfastly refused to produce them

                                                  the FOI appeals officers are attorneys

                                                  this is where these requests are now

                                                  regards,
                                                  Bliss


                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Frank Taucher [mailto:taucher@...]
                                                  Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 9:50 PM
                                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed



                                                  hi frog farmer

                                                  i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
                                                  to me

                                                  i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

                                                  maybe not

                                                  i complained to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded

                                                  with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                                  they're the merrill and ryder cases

                                                  didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                                  handle your confrontations

                                                  i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                                  original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                                  document along with notice

                                                  but am always open to better ideas

                                                  as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                                  etc., i don't disagree

                                                  regards
                                                  ft






                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                                  Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 02:38 PM
                                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                                  Frank Taucher wrote:

                                                  > hi frog farmer
                                                  >
                                                  > good to see you hangin' around again
                                                  >
                                                  > i agree with you on the psq

                                                  Hi Frank! I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
                                                  eliminating some of this suffering going on. Actually, I
                                                  quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
                                                  Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =
                                                  criminals).

                                                  > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
                                                  > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
                                                  > conducts his court

                                                  That's what I figure. I mean, there's no way I can know all
                                                  my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
                                                  do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
                                                  things in this relatively new legal environment. If they
                                                  make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
                                                  it's a legitimate one or not. In fact, I think there's even
                                                  a U.S. Supreme court case that says so. Dang Me! I don't
                                                  remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
                                                  matter anyway. Giving court citations presumes the ability
                                                  of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
                                                  tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
                                                  the law.

                                                  > it is thus where the record is established which is
                                                  > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
                                                  > should there be any

                                                  Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted. Most
                                                  people cannot comprehend that. Most make all kinds of
                                                  unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
                                                  their own detriment.

                                                  > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
                                                  > and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
                                                  > informed that any further proceedings without bona
                                                  > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                                                  > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
                                                  > authority

                                                  So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
                                                  too much of a "hassle" for most people. And most people do
                                                  not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
                                                  convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
                                                  political question. They don't know what they think without
                                                  a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
                                                  they are silent.

                                                  > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
                                                  > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
                                                  > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
                                                  > the matter)

                                                  Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
                                                  disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
                                                  had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
                                                  evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
                                                  initial contact.

                                                  What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
                                                  the initial confrontation? Don't they realize that failure
                                                  to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
                                                  to undo later?

                                                  > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
                                                  > before the hearing

                                                  Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
                                                  because the legitimate players are absent. One can PRETEND
                                                  to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
                                                  than facing reality.

                                                  > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
                                                  > into the record is the correct course of action

                                                  Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly! Then I'd
                                                  agree with you wholeheartedly!

                                                  > return of the charging instrument would have also been
                                                  > appropriate had it been timely performed

                                                  Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
                                                  right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
                                                  not overlook abnormalities).

                                                  > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
                                                  > record and return the instrument than not, imho

                                                  Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
                                                  with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
                                                  mail service. So what am I to do? Personally, I don't
                                                  think things will be corrected in my own lifetime. I'm not
                                                  trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
                                                  the people I meet. Every year the level of literacy declines.

                                                  > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
                                                  > or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
                                                  > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
                                                  > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                                                  I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
                                                  I do keep my own records. But down at the office buildings
                                                  that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
                                                  has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
                                                  prop for the believers/audience. It's very similar to the
                                                  situation in the old Soviet Union. When that government
                                                  collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
                                                  were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
                                                  figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

                                                  I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
                                                  here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
                                                  than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
                                                  (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
                                                  in relative peace.

                                                  They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

                                                  And we all smile at each other on the streets.

                                                  I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
                                                  yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
                                                  Listmanager" stating:

                                                  Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by
                                                  email.

                                                  Your message was not accepted for distribution.

                                                  ---

                                                  What's the story on posting here?









                                                  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/







                                                  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/





                                                  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/
                                                • Frank Taucher
                                                  over the last weeks i posted information on how the states were reconstructed and the original legislation, proclamation and orders installing the provost
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    over the last weeks i posted information on how the states were
                                                    reconstructed and the original legislation, proclamation and orders
                                                    installing the provost marshall in each district in the 1860s

                                                    this is what frog farmer is referring to below

                                                    regards
                                                    ft





                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                                    Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:36 AM
                                                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                                    Frank Taucher wrote:


                                                    > with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                                    > they're the merrill and ryder cases


                                                    Thanks.


                                                    >
                                                    > didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                                    > handle your confrontations


                                                    Well, I didn't give up on it totally - I still take at least
                                                    two with me when I go out, and have them in a dispenser at
                                                    my front door. But I did quit "whipping it out" for
                                                    impersonators, after I discovered the total lack of
                                                    qualified personnel. After all, it's for "public servants",
                                                    not every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry. I felt that just the
                                                    act of presenting it was a ratification of the status for
                                                    the impersonator. So, I quit presenting it unless I found a
                                                    qualified recipient, and of course I never did.

                                                    Actually, my confrontations have run the gamut from peaceful
                                                    to armed stand-offs, from one guy to 6 cars, dog teams and
                                                    helicopters. And yet each one has ended well. I've never
                                                    been hauled off and put in jail except for that one time
                                                    when I was a teenager and it was a total sham. There was
                                                    one time when I had them wait at the curb for my counsel to
                                                    arrive. That was a good one. But I really haven't had
                                                    another confrontation for years, ever since my last court
                                                    case in 1985. There have been three "incidents" at my
                                                    house, where they tried to bluff their way in, and I didn't
                                                    fall for it. A phone conversation with the hostage
                                                    negotiator put it all to rest. I alluded to my files of
                                                    evidence of crimes, and my readiness to discuss their
                                                    matters after prior matters had been discussed, and nobody
                                                    wanted to discuss prior matters. I remember asking, "you
                                                    have heard of 'bad cops' haven't you? Would you like some
                                                    information in that regard?"

                                                    > i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                                    > original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                                    > document along with notice


                                                    It probably does - I cannot say I know what that document
                                                    says. I used to carry around a variety of Constructive
                                                    Notices, and they seemed to "work" when used. But I became
                                                    really disillusioned when I found out that there were NO
                                                    qualified officers at all, anywhere around here. When I had
                                                    started my adventures, there was a mix - there were still
                                                    some old guys left over from the old days who had their
                                                    stuff in order. But as time wore on, qualified officers were
                                                    dying off and not being replaced. They had to fly in a real
                                                    judge from Pasadena for a friend of mine, and for one of my
                                                    cases they pulled in an old guy out of retirement. I caught
                                                    him committing the felony of evidence tampering. The
                                                    investigator I put on the case admitted that it was
                                                    commonplace at that time.

                                                    Since then I had decided that if captured, I would only talk
                                                    to the local Provost Marshal, since I'd have to be a
                                                    prisoner of a military force. Then I'd cite General Order
                                                    100 and ask to be released under Sections 42 and 43.

                                                    > but am always open to better ideas


                                                    Me too! But as it stands today, I'd let them know that I
                                                    know what I know, that there are no qualified officers, and
                                                    that if they press their claims of being officers in a civil
                                                    jurisdiction and they lay hands upon me, I'd be making a
                                                    mutual citizen's arrest for impersonating an officer. If it
                                                    progressed to me being in cuffs in the back seat, I'd ask
                                                    them if they're familiar with my file and if not, why not,
                                                    and tell them that if they are really officers I am giving
                                                    them a "need to know" (my file is sealed open only to those
                                                    with a need to know) and I'll be wanting to talk to the
                                                    Provost Marshall as my chosen counsel.

                                                    > as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                                    > etc., i don't disagree


                                                    Thanks. I was hoping I was wrong.





                                                    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/
                                                  • Frank Taucher
                                                    hi bliss here s some more from another group regarding this issue the relevant statutes which bind the public servant for missouri and nevada are included i
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                       
                                                      hi bliss
                                                       
                                                      here's some more from another group regarding this issue
                                                       
                                                      the relevant statutes which bind the public servant for missouri and nevada are included
                                                       
                                                      i sent you the ones for oklahoma several years ago
                                                       
                                                      they should give you some pretty good insight
                                                       
                                                      regards
                                                      ft
                                                       
                                                      *********************************************************************************************************************
                                                       
                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.220
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                       
                                                      Forfeiture of office--reasons for.
                                                      106.220. Any person elected or appointed to any county, city, town or township office in this state, except such officers as may be subject to removal by impeachment, who shall fail personally to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office, or who shall be guilty of any willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official duty, or who shall knowingly or willfully fail or refuse to do or perform any official act or duty which by law it is his duty to do or perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state, shall thereby forfeit his office, and may be removed therefrom in the manner provided in sections 106.230 to 106.290.
                                                       
                                                      Section 106.230
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Complaint against officer--duty of prosecuting attorney.
                                                      106.230. When any person has knowledge that any official mentioned in section 106.220 has failed, personally, to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office, or has been guilty of any willful, corrupt or fraudulent violations or neglect of any official duty, or has knowingly or willfully failed or refused to perform any official act or duty which by law it was his duty to do or perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of this state, he may make his affidavit before any person authorized to administer oaths, setting forth the facts constituting such offense and file the same with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the offense, for the use of the prosecuting attorney or deposit it with the prosecuting attorney, furnishing also the names of witnesses who have knowledge of the facts constituting such offense; and it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney, if, in his opinion, the facts stated in said affidavit justify the prosecution of the official charged, to file a complaint in the circuit court as soon as practicable upon such affidavit, setting forth in plain and concise language the charge against such official, or the prosecuting attorney may file such complaint against such official upon his official oath and upon his own affidavit.
                                                       
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.240
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Appointment of special prosecutor.
                                                      106.240. Upon the filing of the affidavit as provided in section 106.230, against any prosecuting attorney, the judge of the circuit court of said county may appoint a special prosecutor, who shall have power and authority to file a complaint, as provided in section 106.230, against said prosecuting attorney.
                                                       

                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.250
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Action by attorney general.
                                                      106.250. When an affidavit has been filed with the clerk of the circuit court of any county in this state, as provided in sections 106.230 and 106.240, the governor may, in his discretion, direct the attorney general to assist in the prosecution against said officer; and in case of the refusal of the prosecuting attorney or special prosecutor, after the filing of the affidavit provided for in sections 106.230 and 106.240, to file a complaint, the attorney general shall have authority to file a complaint against the official complained of.
                                                       
                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.260
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Appointment of special sheriff.
                                                      106.260. In any proceedings instituted under the provisions of sections 106.220 to 106.290, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney or special prosecutor appointed by the court may file with the clerk of the circuit court an affidavit that he believes the sheriff of said county is disqualified from summoning a fair and impartial jury for the trial of said cause, by reason of the fact that he is related to the defendant, or is interested or prejudiced in his favor to such an extent that he will not, in the opinion of said attorney general, prosecuting attorney or special prosecutor, summon a fair and impartial jury, and the judge may, in his discretion, thereupon make an order disqualifying said sheriff from summoning the jury in said cause, and appoint an elisor, who shall have the same power as the sheriff in the summoning of the jury, and perform the duties of the sheriff in the trial of said cause; provided, that in case the said proceeding shall be against the sheriff of any county, the judge shall make an order disqualifying him, and appoint an elisor for the summoning of the jury and performing the duties of the office of the sheriff for the trial of said cause.
                                                       
                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.270
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Removal of officer--vacancy, how filled.
                                                      106.270. If any official against whom a proceeding has been filed, as provided for in sections 106.220 to 106.290, shall be found guilty of failing personally to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office, or of any willful, corrupt or fraudulent violation or neglect of official duty, or of knowingly or willfully failing or refusing to do or perform any official act or duty which by law it is made his duty to do or perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state, the court shall render judgment removing him from such office, and he shall not be elected or appointed to fill the vacancy thereby created, but the same shall be filled as provided by law for filling vacancies in other cases. All actions and proceedings under sections 106.220 to 106.290 shall be in the nature of civil actions, and tried as such.
                                                       
                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.280
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Right of appeal.
                                                      106.280. In all prosecutions under sections 106.220 to 106.290, the defendant shall, upon conviction, after judgment of removal is entered, be entitled to an appeal to the supreme court of Missouri, and said cause shall have precedence in said court on such appeal, and such supreme court shall hear such appeal as soon as possible. Pending such appeal such officer shall be suspended from office, and the trial court shall appoint a resident of the county, qualified in law, who shall act as such special officer pending the appeal; and if the decision on said appeal in said supreme court shall be in favor of the defendant, he shall be entitled to the pay for the time for which he was removed. The person acting as such officer during such appeal shall be entitled to the same compensation of a duly elected officer. The costs herein provided for shall be taxed against and paid by the county in which said proceedings originated. And the fee of any prosecuting attorney, as provided for in sections 106.220 to 106.290, shall be a reasonable one, fixed by the court, and payable out of the county treasury.
                                                       
                                                      Missouri Revised Statutes
                                                      Chapter 106
                                                      Removal and Impeachment of Public Officers
                                                      Section 106.290
                                                       
                                                      August 28, 2002
                                                       
                                                      Payment of costs.
                                                      106.290. If, upon the trial of such cause, the defendant be acquitted, the complainant shall be adjudged to pay all costs, and upon motion for that purpose, filed before said cause shall be called for trial, the court may compel him to give security for payment of the same, and in default thereof may dismiss the complaint, except that in cases where the complaint is filed officially, no security for costs shall be required, and no costs adjudged against the complainant; but the same shall be paid by the county in case of acquittal, and by the defendant in case of conviction.
                                                       
                                                       

                                                      >
                                                      > hi brad
                                                      >
                                                      > does the matter call
                                                      for a private attorney general when called to the
                                                      > attention of
                                                      "officers", or is the prior step in the process of exhaustion
                                                      > of
                                                      available remedies not to first demand a non-bar special master
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      regards
                                                      > ft
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >

                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      href="http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C106.HTM">http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C106.HTM
                                                      >
                                                      > The above URL shows RSMo 106.230 - 106.290.  It
                                                      provides that anyone can
                                                      > file a complaint and the prosecutor shall bring
                                                      the case forward unless it
                                                      > is against a prosecutor then the judge may
                                                      appoint a special prosecutor and
                                                      > sheriff.  That failing, the case
                                                      may be brought forward by the state AG.
                                                      > The cost of the action is paid
                                                      by the county unless the charge turns out to
                                                      > be false.
                                                      > This is
                                                      being done here in Missouri by David Baugh in regards to several
                                                      >
                                                      sheriffs, prosecutors & judges.  To date in his case in Washington County
                                                      > Missouri, 7 judges have recused thereselves.  All of the
                                                      forfeiture of
                                                      > office cases have been dismissed at the local level and
                                                      David is in the
                                                      > process of taking it to the state AG.
                                                      > It is
                                                      interesting to note that several of the counties returned his
                                                      > complaints
                                                      for failure to pay the fee they thought was required in order to
                                                      > file
                                                      the action.  He returned them with explanations of the statute and got
                                                      > all of them filed without filing fees.  However, the local
                                                      judges dismissed
                                                      > them all which elevates them to the AG level.
                                                      >
                                                      It will be interesting to see how it turns out.  All of the clerks that were
                                                      > threatened/noticed with the forfeiture of office for not filing his
                                                      case at
                                                      > the county expense gave in and filed the cases per the
                                                      statute.
                                                      >
                                                      > I agree, this is the best discussion on teaparty I
                                                      have seen in a while.
                                                      >
                                                      > bs
                                                       
                                                      ?
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > You have a very good start. The
                                                      next step would be to somehow figure
                                                      > out how to get the court to appoint
                                                      a "private" attorney general
                                                      > because the AG refused or neglected his
                                                      duty. NRS 252.100. Right. As if.
                                                      >
                                                      > See if The People have an
                                                      independent cause of action outside of the
                                                      > statutes. If one of The
                                                      People can show actual harm or damage due to
                                                      > the misappropriation of
                                                      these funds, then you should be able to file a
                                                      > criminal complaint -
                                                      privately.
                                                      >
                                                      > In Michigan and Alaska, a complaint can be brought
                                                      by a private party
                                                      > by first obtaining approval from the county
                                                      prosecutor or BY POSTING
                                                      > SECURITY FOR COSTS. Ralph Winterrowd from
                                                      Alaska was talking about a
                                                      > magistrate "refusing" to "allow" two people
                                                      to swear out a complaint
                                                      > before him against an Alaska State Trooper. I
                                                      noticed the provision
                                                      > for security for costs in his warrant statute, and
                                                      told him next time
                                                      > to post a bond. It will be interesting to see how
                                                      they keep from
                                                      > taking the complaint and issuing a warrant.
                                                      >
                                                      > Look in your warrant criminal procedures.
                                                      >
                                                      > If, in fact
                                                      the county prosecutor should be subject to a complaint,
                                                      > then I would
                                                      first file a complaint with the state attorney general.
                                                      > If I got not
                                                      action from that, then I would figure out a way to
                                                      > verbalize the state
                                                      attorney general's DUTY to pursue the action and
                                                      > that his failure should
                                                      result in a MANDAMUS action in whatever court
                                                      > might have jurisdiction
                                                      over the state attorney general. My guess is
                                                      > that would be the Nevada
                                                      Supreme Court.
                                                      >
                                                      > Did you guys not have some success in the
                                                      NSC?
                                                      > I think they LIKE you. How about a repeat performance.
                                                      > Did
                                                      you not already have positive results from mandamus?

                                                      >
                                                      B
                                                      >

                                                      > > We are looking into options as I
                                                      write this.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I just found a law concerning the Attorney
                                                      General and Secretary of
                                                      > State
                                                      > > that says
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 281.360 Failure by public officer or employee to perform
                                                      duty:
                                                      > Penalty.
                                                      > > Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon
                                                      any public officer or other
                                                      > > person holding any public trust or
                                                      employment, their willful neglect to
                                                      > > perform such duty, except
                                                      where otherwise specifically provided for,
                                                      > shall
                                                      > > be a
                                                      misdemeanor.[1911 C&P § 24; RL § 6289; NCL § 9973]
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      NRS 252.030 Bond. Unless a blanket fidelity bond is furnished by the
                                                      > > county, before entering upon the duties of his office, the district
                                                      > > attorney shall execute and file with the county clerk a bond to the
                                                      >
                                                      county,
                                                      > > conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties, the
                                                      penalty
                                                      > of the
                                                      > > bond to be fixed by the board of county
                                                      commissioners.
                                                      > > [2:125:1865; B § 2936; BH § 2105; C § 2297; RL §
                                                      1594; NCL §
                                                      > 2072]-(NRS A
                                                      > > 1979, 289)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 228.210 Neglect of duty: Misdemeanor. If the attorney general
                                                      >
                                                      neglects
                                                      > > or refuses to perform any of the duties required of him by
                                                      law, he is
                                                      > > guilty of a misdemeanor or is subject to removal from
                                                      office.
                                                      > > [7:67:1867; B § 2779; BH § 1784; C § 2005; RL § 4134; NCL
                                                      §
                                                      > 7313]-(NRS A
                                                      > > 1977, 150)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS
                                                      252.100 Appointment of attorney if district attorney unable or
                                                      > fails
                                                      to
                                                      > > act; deduction from salary.
                                                      > > 1. If the district
                                                      attorney fails to attend any session of the district
                                                      > > court, or for
                                                      any reason is disqualified from acting in any matter
                                                      > coming
                                                      > >
                                                      before the court, the court may appoint some other person to perform
                                                      >
                                                      the
                                                      > > duties of the district attorney, who is entitled to receive the
                                                      same
                                                      > > compensation and expenses from the county as provided in NRS
                                                      7.125 and
                                                      > > 7.135 for an attorney who is appointed to represent a
                                                      person charged
                                                      > with a
                                                      > > crime.
                                                      > > 2. If the
                                                      district attorney willfully neglects to attend any session
                                                      > of
                                                      the
                                                      > > district court the amount so paid must be deducted by the board
                                                      of
                                                      > county
                                                      > > commissioners from the salary allowed to the
                                                      district attorney.
                                                      > > [6:125:1865; A 1889, 73; 1907, 25; RL § 1597;
                                                      NCL § 2075]-(NRS A 1975,
                                                      > > 1156; 1987, 1303)
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 252.190 Penalty for malfeasance in office or neglect of
                                                      duty. The
                                                      > > district attorney may be prosecuted for malfeasance in
                                                      office, or
                                                      > neglect
                                                      > > of duty, and shall be punished for a
                                                      gross misdemeanor and as
                                                      > provided in
                                                      > > NRS 197.230.
                                                      > > [15:125:1865; B § 2949; BH § 2118; C § 2309; RL § 1606; NCL §
                                                      >
                                                      2084]-(NRS A
                                                      > > 1959, 121; 1967, 542)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS
                                                      197.180 Wrongful exercise of official power. Any person who
                                                      >
                                                      willfully
                                                      > > takes upon himself to exercise or officiate in any office
                                                      or place of
                                                      > > another, without being lawfully authorized thereto, is
                                                      guilty of a
                                                      > gross
                                                      > > misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P §
                                                      539; RL § 6804; NCL § 10485]-(NRS A 1967, 462)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS
                                                      197.200 Oppression under color of office.
                                                      > > 1. An officer, or a
                                                      person pretending to be an officer, who
                                                      > unlawfully and
                                                      > >
                                                      maliciously, under pretense or color of official authority:
                                                      > > (a)
                                                      Arrests another or detains him against his will;
                                                      > > (b) Seizes or
                                                      levies upon another's property;
                                                      > > (c) Dispossesses another of any
                                                      lands or tenements; or
                                                      > > (d) Does any act whereby another person is
                                                      injured in his person,
                                                      > property
                                                      > > or rights,
                                                      > >
                                                      commits oppression.
                                                      > > 2. An officer or person committing oppression
                                                      shall be punished:
                                                      > > (a) Where physical force or the immediate threat
                                                      of physical force
                                                      > is used,
                                                      > > for a category D felony as
                                                      provided in NRS 193.130.
                                                      > > (b) Where no physical force or immediate
                                                      threat of physical force is
                                                      > used,
                                                      > > for a gross
                                                      misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P § 541; RL § 6806; NCL § 10487]-(NRS A
                                                      1967, 462; 1995, 1172)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 197.210 Fraudulent
                                                      appropriation of property. An officer who
                                                      > > fraudulently appropriates
                                                      to his own use or to the use of another
                                                      > person,
                                                      > > or secretes
                                                      with the intent to appropriate to such a use, any money,
                                                      > > evidence
                                                      of debt or other property entrusted to him by virtue of his
                                                      > > office,
                                                      shall be punished:
                                                      > > 1. Where the amount of the money or the actual
                                                      value of the property
                                                      > > fraudulently appropriated or secreted with
                                                      the intent to appropriate is
                                                      > > $250 or more, for a category D felony
                                                      as provided in NRS 193.130. In
                                                      > > addition to any other penalty, the
                                                      court shall order the person to pay
                                                      > > restitution.
                                                      > > 2.
                                                      Where the amount of the money or the actual value of the property
                                                      > >
                                                      fraudulently appropriated or secreted with the intent to appropriate is
                                                      > > less than $250, for a misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [Part 1911 C&P § 80; RL
                                                      § 6345; NCL § 10029]-(NRS A 1967, 462; 1979,
                                                      > 1419;
                                                      > > 1989,
                                                      1431; 1995, 1173)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 197.220 Other violations by
                                                      officers. Every public officer or other
                                                      > > person who shall willfully
                                                      disobey any provision of law regulating his
                                                      > > official conduct in
                                                      cases for which no other punishment is provided
                                                      > shall
                                                      > > be
                                                      guilty of a misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P § 563; RL § 6828; NCL §
                                                      10508]
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 197.230 Conviction of public officer
                                                      forfeits trust. The
                                                      > conviction of
                                                      > > a public officer of any
                                                      felony or malfeasance in office shall
                                                      > entail, in
                                                      > > addition
                                                      to such other penalty as may be imposed, the forfeiture of his
                                                      > >
                                                      office, and shall disqualify him from ever afterward holding any public
                                                      > > office in this state.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P § 22; RL § 6287; NCL §
                                                      9971]
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 197.130 False report by public officer.
                                                      Every public officer who
                                                      > shall
                                                      > > knowingly make any false or
                                                      misleading statement in any official
                                                      > report or
                                                      > > statement,
                                                      under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law,
                                                      > shall be
                                                      > > guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P § 84; RL § 6349;
                                                      NCL § 10033]
                                                      > >
                                                      > > NRS 197.140 Public officer making false
                                                      certificate. Every public
                                                      > officer
                                                      > > who, being authorized by
                                                      law to make or give a certificate or other
                                                      > > writing, shall knowingly
                                                      make and deliver as true such a certificate or
                                                      > > writing containing
                                                      any statement which he knows to be false, in a case
                                                      > > where the
                                                      punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law,
                                                      > shall be
                                                      > > guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
                                                      > > [1911 C&P § 110; RL § 6375;
                                                      NCL § 10059]
                                                      > >
                                                      > >

                                                      > >
                                                      > > >So,
                                                      what prevents Hansen from prosecuting ?
                                                      > > >

                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Independent American Party
                                                      > > >415 S. Sixth St. Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
                                                      > > >702-385-5533, 775-284-4427,
                                                      color=#000000 size=2>www.iapn.org
                                                      > > >May 30, 2003
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >DA's Refusal to
                                                      Prosecute Called Outrage
                                                      > > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
                                                      > > >"David Roger's refusal to prosecute library district directors for
                                                      >
                                                      violating
                                                      > > >the law against using taxpayers' money to advocate
                                                      more taxes is an
                                                      > outrage
                                                      > > >and makes a mockery of the
                                                      law," said Attorney Joel Hansen, one of
                                                      > Roger's
                                                      > > >opponents in the last D.A. race, and chairman of the Independent
                                                      >
                                                      American
                                                      > > >Party of Nevada. "District Attorney David Roger has
                                                      given carte
                                                      > blanche to
                                                      > > >government officials who decide
                                                      to spend taxpayer money illegally
                                                      > and then
                                                      > > >plead
                                                      ignorance later." Rogers was quoted Wednesday in the Review
                                                      >
                                                      Journal
                                                      > > >saying that he was not going to prosecute library
                                                      officials for
                                                      > illegally
                                                      > > >spending $48,000 of taxpayer
                                                      money for campaign mailers and bookmarks
                                                      > > >because "library
                                                      district administrators . . . didn't intend to
                                                      > violate the
                                                      > > >law."
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >"I suppose this now means that I
                                                      can check as many books out of the
                                                      > library
                                                      > > >as I want
                                                      to, take them home and 'forget' about them, and then,
                                                      > when I'm
                                                      > > >prosecuted for theft, I can claim that I didn't intend to
                                                      violate
                                                      > the law,"
                                                      > > >mused Hansen. "But, it appears that
                                                      these library directors
                                                      > shouldn't be
                                                      > > >expected to know
                                                      the law. After all, it would take research in a
                                                      > library to
                                                      > > >find out that they were about to commit a felony. Hasn't the DA
                                                      > ever
                                                      heard
                                                      > > >of the maxim: 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse?'" asked
                                                      Hansen.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >"This law was passed to prevent
                                                      government officials from using our tax
                                                      > > >money to persuade us to
                                                      give them more tax money," Hansen protested.
                                                      > > >"According to
                                                      David Roger, these people have committed a felony,
                                                      > punishable
                                                      > > >by a $20,000 fine. If I were the DA I would tell them that if
                                                      they
                                                      > will pay
                                                      > > >back the money that they feloniously took
                                                      from taxpayers, then I would
                                                      > > >consider dropping the charges. But
                                                      to let them go without so much
                                                      > as a slap
                                                      > > >on the hand is
                                                      to say to all bureaucrats that they are above the
                                                      > law, and
                                                      > > >only the peons, the ordinary citizen, will be prosecuted."
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Hansen, a practicing attorney in Las Vegas, also pointed
                                                      out that the
                                                      > > >library officials had apparently violated state
                                                      election laws
                                                      > requiring them
                                                      > > >to file as a political
                                                      action committee because they were using
                                                      > money to
                                                      > > >affect the outcome of a ballot issue, and would be required to
                                                      >
                                                      report the
                                                      > > >source of the money and expenditures. "Why aren't
                                                      library officials
                                                      > being
                                                      > > >prosecuted by the Attorney
                                                      General for violating the state election
                                                      > laws?"
                                                      > > >asked
                                                      Hansen. "While some Independent American Party candidates are
                                                      >
                                                      being
                                                      > > >prosecuted on the technicality of mailing in their
                                                      campaign expenditure
                                                      > > >reports by regular mail instead of by
                                                      certified mail, the library
                                                      > district
                                                      > > >officials are
                                                      being let off with no punishment whatsoever. I guess
                                                      > you have
                                                      > > >to be part of the ruling establishment in order to violate the law
                                                      with
                                                      > > >impunity," Hansen observed.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Hansen concluded: "The Independent American party has always stood
                                                      for
                                                      > > >lifting the intolerable tax burden now being borne by
                                                      Nevada
                                                      > citizens. This
                                                      > > >type of
                                                      soft--on--bureaucratic--crime attitude cannot be tolerated.
                                                      >
                                                      District
                                                      > > >Attorney Roger should be removed from office for
                                                      nonfeasance and
                                                      > malfeasance
                                                      > > >if he continues to refuse
                                                      to prosecute blatant illegal activity by
                                                      > Clark
                                                      > > >County
                                                      bureaucrats, especially when it wastes the hard earned
                                                      > dollars of
                                                      the
                                                      > > >citizens of Clark County. At a time when the State
                                                      government tells
                                                      > us they
                                                      > > >want to raise our taxes
                                                      because they don't already take enough out
                                                      > of our
                                                      > > >paychecks, this waste of our money cannot be allowed."
                                                       
                                                      *********************************************************************************************************************


                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Frank Taucher [mailto:taucher@...]
                                                      Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 02:48 PM
                                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF
                                                      ABSENCE OF



                                                      hi bliss

                                                      there's something along the lines of the consequences of failure to perform a duty

                                                      one of the things you want to highlight is the difference between a discretionary duty (deciding) and a ministerial one (executing a defined action)

                                                      providing the requested documents would seem to be a ministerial duty

                                                      notice them of such with an affidavit attesting as to what's happened so far and give them 10 days to perform their duty and correct the injury they've done to you

                                                      if they still don't perform, record the completed package and then take the record and file for a writ of mandamus and for forfeiture of office for their lawless activity

                                                      regards
                                                      ft

                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Bliss Alexandra [mailto:abliss@...]
                                                      Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 09:15 AM
                                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF
                                                      ABSENCE OF


                                                      i have a request in for certification of the ABSENCE of commission of dmv
                                                      commissioner

                                                      and relatedly an absence of bonds waiver by ny comptroller for ny officers

                                                      because these requests are for evidence quality certifications

                                                      the FOI officers have steadfastly refused to produce them

                                                      the FOI appeals officers are attorneys

                                                      this is where these requests are now

                                                      regards,
                                                      Bliss


                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Frank Taucher [mailto:taucher@...]
                                                      Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 9:50 PM
                                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed



                                                      hi frog farmer

                                                      i don't know about the posting problem, but have had the same thing happen
                                                      to me

                                                      i think it's got something to do with barry's filtering of the posts

                                                      maybe not

                                                      i complained to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded

                                                      with respect to the supreme court cases, i think there are two and that
                                                      they're the merrill and ryder cases

                                                      didn't think you'd ever give up the psq and would be interested in how you
                                                      handle your confrontations

                                                      i had come to the conclusion that it just made sense to carry around an
                                                      original jurisdiction habeas corpus and present it as the very first
                                                      document along with notice

                                                      but am always open to better ideas

                                                      as to the rest regarding your inability to find a bona fide officer/court
                                                      etc., i don't disagree

                                                      regards
                                                      ft






                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                                                      Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 02:38 PM
                                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed


                                                      Frank Taucher wrote:

                                                       > hi frog farmer
                                                       >
                                                       > good to see you hangin' around again
                                                       >
                                                       > i agree with you on the psq

                                                      Hi Frank!  I had to throw in my two cents worth in hopes of
                                                      eliminating some of this suffering going on.  Actually, I
                                                      quit using the PSQ because it's only meant for real Public
                                                      Servants, not Perceived Public Servants (Impersonators =
                                                      criminals).

                                                       > in fact, imho, the initial contact is the court of
                                                       > original jurisdiction and is where the Sovereign
                                                       > conducts his court

                                                      That's what I figure.  I mean, there's no way I can know all
                                                      my neighbors until they introduce themselves, and when they
                                                      do, I'm always curious to know how they're dealing with
                                                      things in this relatively new legal environment.  If they
                                                      make some special claim, I have the right to determine if
                                                      it's a legitimate one or not.  In fact, I think there's even
                                                      a U.S. Supreme court case that says so.  Dang Me!  I don't
                                                      remember the name of it right now, but that doesn't really
                                                      matter anyway.  Giving court citations presumes the ability
                                                      of your opponent to recognize them, and all these folks will
                                                      tell you that they aren't competent or responsible to know
                                                      the law.

                                                       > it is thus where the record is established which is
                                                       > thereafter reviewed in all downstream proceedings,
                                                       > should there be any

                                                      Absolutely right, and that's why I finally posted.  Most
                                                      people cannot comprehend that.  Most make all kinds of
                                                      unfounded assumptions and then proceed to act upon them, to
                                                      their own detriment.

                                                       > obviously, when one handles that question of jurisdiction
                                                       >  and authority up front, it becomes obvious to the
                                                       > informed that any further proceedings without bona
                                                       > fides first being made to appear in the record of the
                                                       > proceeding establishes all that follows as without
                                                       > authority

                                                      So true, but to handle "the scene of the crime" correctly is
                                                      too much of a "hassle" for most people.  And most people do
                                                      not have convictions, and thus no courage of their
                                                      convictions. For most folks I've met reality is still a
                                                      political question.  They don't know what they think without
                                                      a program to follow, and where the program fails to speak,
                                                      they are silent.

                                                       > the situation i was responding to involved a matter in
                                                       > which the bona fides had not been challenged by charles in
                                                       > the initial contact (at least, that's how i understand
                                                       > the matter)

                                                      Right, and my posting was not really directed at you or
                                                      disagreeing with you, but was spurred by your post after I
                                                      had read quite a few others on the topic, and didn't see any
                                                      evidence of anyone challenging anyone for legitimacy at the
                                                      initial contact.

                                                      What will it take to get people to challenge bona fides at
                                                      the initial confrontation?  Don't they realize that failure
                                                      to do so is a ratification by them which will be doubly hard
                                                      to undo later?

                                                       > hence, this is the next chance to correct the record
                                                       > before the hearing

                                                      Right, except here, there can be no legitimate hearing,
                                                      because the legitimate players are absent.  One can PRETEND
                                                      to have a hearing, but I think that route is more dangerous
                                                      than facing reality.

                                                       > therefore, i believe the negative averment affidavit filed
                                                       >  into the record is the correct course of action

                                                      Ahhh, I wish WE here had a court set properly!  Then I'd
                                                      agree with you wholeheartedly!

                                                       > return of the charging instrument would have also been
                                                       > appropriate had it been timely performed

                                                      Here, the "charging instrument" is most often illegitmate
                                                      right on its face, for those who care enough to check (and
                                                      not overlook abnormalities).

                                                       > even now, however, it would be better to correct the
                                                       > record and return the instrument than not, imho

                                                      Yes, but my problem is, when I go there in person, nobody
                                                      with authority can be found, and I do not personally use the
                                                      mail service.  So what am I to do?  Personally, I don't
                                                      think things will be corrected in my own lifetime.  I'm not
                                                      trying to be negative, but am just going by what I see with
                                                      the people I meet.  Every year the level of literacy declines.

                                                       > further, with respect to all others who seek to interlope
                                                       >  or trespass upon the action, the bona fides should be
                                                       > challenged immediately, the person qualified, and an
                                                       > affidavit filed into the record of each outcome

                                                      I would agree, if there were a record being kept. Of course,
                                                      I do keep my own records.  But down at the office buildings
                                                      that used to house government functionaries, organized crime
                                                      has taken over, and anything resembling records is a sham
                                                      prop for the believers/audience.  It's very similar to the
                                                      situation in the old Soviet Union.  When that government
                                                      collapsed, criminals took over there too, because the people
                                                      were generally powerless and always looked for an authority
                                                      figure to direct them, and approve of their actions.

                                                      I've had a talk with some of the criminals running things
                                                      here now, and we've concluded that I can be more trouble
                                                      than I'm worth, and since I have no goal to end criminality
                                                      (a futile exercise) I can be let alone to live out my life
                                                      in relative peace.

                                                      They've even had special meetings about me and my friends.

                                                      And we all smile at each other on the streets.

                                                      I hope this post makes it to the list, since two tries
                                                      yesterday were met with rejection notices from "Lyris
                                                      Listmanager" stating:

                                                      Sorry, but this mailing list does not accept submissions by
                                                      email.

                                                      Your message was not accepted for distribution.

                                                      ---

                                                      What's the story on posting here?




                                                    • Frog Farmer
                                                      ... I m taking it back online because it s okay... ... No, not really, because the sealed file came about near the end of my string of cases. It was the
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Frank Taucher wrote:

                                                        > hi frog farmer
                                                        >
                                                        > thought it best at this point to go off line


                                                        I'm taking it back online because it's okay...


                                                        > your statements make it appear that the real reason you've been able to
                                                        > manage to avoid certain harrowing situations isn't so much due to a psq or
                                                        > other challenges a normal People might mount, but because of an incident in
                                                        > the past that created a "special sealed file"
                                                        >
                                                        > is that correct
                                                        >

                                                        No, not really, because the sealed file came about near the
                                                        end of my string of cases. It was the psychiatric report I
                                                        didn't know how to avoid at that time (but now I do!).

                                                        Rather than contain an opinion by a psychiatrist, it was
                                                        filled with lies and things we never discussed, one of which
                                                        was that I was trying to become financially independent for
                                                        life by suing some flunkie for violating my rights. Believe
                                                        me, that never came up in the interview, but I still think
                                                        it's a great thing for them all to read. They might even
                                                        believe it! I don't think any have exercised their right to
                                                        read it after I gave them the "need to know". Must be fear
                                                        of the unknown...

                                                        If I had to point a finger to the reason why I seem to
                                                        skate, it's that I deal with individuals and demand reality,
                                                        not pretense from their mouths and actions. I also tell them
                                                        I have no intention of moving on, I'm here for good until I
                                                        die. I don't pretend things just to conform. I demand
                                                        honesty. And I sympathize with them all, the way they all
                                                        feel so locked in to a life where they have to lie and
                                                        pretend. It must be horrible.
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.