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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH - proof of not needed

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.