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

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

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