- I just spent a week in a law class studying trust law and remedies, notes and the like. Here is something I have deduced and have never heard before. Bear, please excuse the language but I must use it for the context.Trust are corporations that must have the word TRUST with the name;The new "money" that is proposed is absent a popular phrase;Our old silver certificates were absent the same phrase;In order to destroy the economy the government TRUST would first have to be collapsed;Ergo, I think the words: IN G-- WE TRUST is not a statement, it is the name of the foreign corporation, a TRUST, known as IN G-- WE.If so, and following a valid concept that G-- is the name of a pagan deity, then the TRUST named IN G-- WE is a corporation designed to control commerce through a specific law form primarily concerning contracts.If my theory is correct, then said name may not lawfully be used on any new notes issued by a separate corporation.Again, this is just a theory.
John-Chester of the family Stuart
sovereign; HIDC of JCS is YHWH
c/o postal service location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf
I am not an attorney and do not give
legal advice, all information is for
education purposes only.
Read Luke 23:2 &
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
- I hope Bear allows this link as it does contain that certain word he doesn't like but the link doesn't work without it.You might want to read the article at---- Original Message -----From: mobinem@...Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:52 AMSubject: [tips_and_tricks] trustTrust are corporations that must have the word TRUST with the name;The new "money" that is proposed is absent a popular phrase;Our old silver certificates were absent the same phrase;
- John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential
decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the
authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank
of its power to loan money to the United States
Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a
pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately
owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of
business. The Ch--stian Law Fellowship has
exhaustively researched this matter through the
Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now
safely conclude that this Executive Order has never
been repealed, amended, or superceded by any
subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of
Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to
the federal government, specifically the Treasury
Department, the Constitutional power to create and
issue currency -money - without going through the
privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President
Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is
displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department
the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates
against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver
dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every
ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the
government could introduce new money into circulation
based on the silver bullion physically held there. As
a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes
were brought into circulation in $2 and $5
denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were
never circulated but were being printed by the
Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It
appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the
Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported
legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of
the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free
and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in
the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve
Note" issued from the private central bank of the
United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal
Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the
U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive
Order. They almost look alike, except one says
"Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says
"United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note
has a green seal and serial number while the United
States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22,
1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were
immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve
Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the
nation. According to the United States Secret Service,
99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999
are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States
Notes were widely circulated, they would have
eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This
is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was
backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by
anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110
should have prevented the national debt from reaching
its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9
trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963)
if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it.
It would have almost immediately given the U.S.
Government the ability to repay its debt without going
to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged
interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110
gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its
own money backed by silver and realm value worth
Again, according to our own research, just five months
after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series
1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and
they were subsequently removed from circulation.
Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all
future presidents not to interfere with the private
Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money.
It seems very apparent that President Kennedy
challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and
world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK
boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that
have ever been used to drive up debt:
1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central
His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by
1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have
destroyed the profits and control of the private
Federal Reserve Bank.
Executive Order 11110
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS
AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of
the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3
of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19,
1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By
adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following
subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the
President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of
May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue
silver certificates against any silver bullion,
silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not
then held for redemption of any outstanding silver
certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such
silver certificates, and to coin standard silver
dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their
redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and
(c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment
made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or
any right accruing or accrued or any suit or
proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal
cause prior to the date of this Order but all such
liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if
said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963
Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid.
According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301
dated January 26, 1998:
Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16
F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
Ø EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R.
Ø EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
Ø EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
Ø EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R.
Ø EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R.
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's
1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of
Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and
1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown
no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or
changes to EO 11110.
The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve
System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law
Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as:
"Network of twelve central banks to which most
national banks belong and to which state chartered
banks may belong. Membership rules require investment
of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks
own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more
detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal
Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241
(1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve
Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial
banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial
banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member
board of directors".
The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by
their member banks. Once again, according to Black's
Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned
banks actually issue money:
"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal
Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money
reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes,
lending money to banks, and supervising banks.
Administered by Federal Reserve Board ( q.v.)". The
privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually
issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House
Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on
Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th
Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which
contains a good description of what the FED is: "The
Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It
can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem
of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5
and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by
asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving
to print them".
Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot
of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of
people who have the power to create money. Imagine the
power these people would have. This is exactly what
the privately owned FED is!
No man did more to expose the power of the FED than
Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House
Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the
FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House
pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most
corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer
to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve
banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board,
has cheated the Government of the United States and he
people of the United States out of enough money to pay
the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities
of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve
banks acting together have cost this country enough
money to pay the national debt several times over.
This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the
people of the United States; has bankrupted itself,
and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has
done this through the maladministration of that law by
which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the
corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United
States Government institutions. They are not
Government institutions, departments, or agencies.
They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the
people of the United States for the benefit of
themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12
private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon
this country by bankers who came here from Europe and
who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our
The FED basically works like this: The government
granted its power to create money to the FED banks.
They create money, then loan it back to the government
charging interest. The government levies income taxes
to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's
interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and
the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power
to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The
incredible power of the FED over the economy is
universally admitted. Some people, especially in the
banking and academic communities, even support it. On
the other hand, there are those, such as President
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against
it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to
reform American society involves money. Kennedy
apparently reasoned that by returning to the
constitution, which states that only Congress shall
coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt
could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers
of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money
then loan it to the government at interest. He moved
in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive
Order 11110 which called for the issuance of
$4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S.
Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve
System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing
the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to
gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon,
had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve
Board for some time, encouraging broader investment
and lending powers for banks that were not part of the
Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that
non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local
general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant
Federal Reserve banks".
In a comment made to a Columbia University class on
Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
"The high office of the President has been used to
foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and
before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of
In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be
the subject of his own book... a true Profile of
This research report was compiled by Anthony Wayne
What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we
by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed
to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor
commercial banks to ensure that they maintain
sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent
and stable. Central banks also do business, such as
currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other
central banks. In theory, a central bank should be
good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for
the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the
government of the country they are serving. Private
central banks, including our FED, operate not in the
interest of the public good but for profit.
There have been three central banks in our nation's
history. The first two, while deceptive and
fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size
of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED.
What they all have in common is an insidious practice
known as "fractional banking."
Fractional banking or fractional lending is the
ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the
government or someone else and charge interest to
boot. The practice evolved before banks existed.
Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to
individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or
silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a
certificate that showed the amount of gold stored.
These certificates were then used to conduct business.
In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their
vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move
in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing
a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double
receipts for the gold, in effect creating money
(certificates) from nothing and then lending those
certificates (creating debt) to depositors and
charging them interest as well.
Since the certificates represented more gold than
actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally"
backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault
operations were transformed into banks and the
practice of fractional banking continued.
Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we
examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the
United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter
dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20
years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used
its control of the currency to defraud the public and
establish a legal form of usury.
This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate,
ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on
deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter
continued for the entire 20 years of their existence.
Public outrage over these abuses was such that the
charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist
The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos,
seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy
profits. They influenced Congress to charter the
second central bank, the Second Bank of the United
States (SBUS), in 1816.
The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS
sold franchises and literally doubled the number of
banks in a short period of time. The country began to
boom and move westward, which required money. Using
fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank
and their franchisees created the debt/money for the
Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to
shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control
inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused
bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took
control of the assets that were used as security
against the loans.
Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of
prosperity and depression. The central bank caused
inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit
and making these funds readily available. The economy
boomed. Then they used the inflation which they
created as an excuse to shut off the
The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to
falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of
business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The
central bank then seized the assets used as security
for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers
during the boom was then transferred to the central
bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the
big guys ended up with all the marbles.
Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the
ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years?
Think about the depression of the late '20s and all
through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of
debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy
and get the country back on track, but did they? No;
in fact, they restricted the money supply quite
severely. We all know the results that occurred from
that action, don't we?
Why would the FED do this? During that period asset
values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do
you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the
dollar? I believe that it is referred to as
consolidating the wealth. How many times have they
already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?
Just as an aside at this point, look at today's
economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED
has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The
market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The
FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They
restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they
do that? The market collapses.
Several months back, after certain central banks said
they would be selling large quantities of gold, the
price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per
ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After
buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks
announced that they would be restricting the amount of
gold released into the market for the next five years.
The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a
few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did
the central banks make with those two press releases?
Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against
more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the
private banking families that own the FED are buying
or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low,
sell high.) How much money do you think these FED
owners have made since they restricted the money
supply at the top of this last current cycle?
Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions
that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to
that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest
rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets
have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians
do not rule central banks, central banks rule
governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson
won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the
national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his
second term President Jackson withdrew all government
funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off
the national debt. He is the only president in history
to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS
expired in 1836.
Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of
money, the United States experienced unprecedented
growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth
was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get
back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson
Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary
Commission, in collusion with representatives of the
European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and
deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would
covertly establish a private central bank.
This bank would assume control over the American
economy by controlling the issuance of its money.
After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by
the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of
1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas
recess, with many members of the Congress absent.
President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political
and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name
carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal"
would lead one to believe that this is a government
organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that
the currency is being backed by gold and silver.
"System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that
one would not conclude that a new central bank had
In reality, the act created a private, for profit,
central banking corporation owned by a cartel of
private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of
London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel
Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of
Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and
the Rockefeller families of New York.
Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit
corporation in America that is exempt from both
federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one
trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking
families listed above get all that money.
Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in
taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses
of the government. Do you want to know where your tax
dollars really go? If you look at the back of any
check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has
been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen.
Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment
of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay
in income taxes is given to those private banking
families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the
concept of creating money from nothing. You may have
heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of
the same thing. As an example, if the US Government
wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does
borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to
borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says
print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of
one hundred dollars.
The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note,
for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then
lends the $1 million to the government at face value
plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government
has to create a bond for $1 million as security for
the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just
an example, because in reality the FED does not even
print the money; it's just a computer entry in their
accounting system. To put this on a more personal
level, let's use another example.
Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve
Banking System. This membership makes it legal for
them to create money from nothing and lend it to you.
Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize
that only a small fraction of the money deposited in
their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of
cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that
exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is
simply a computer entry.
Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some
home improvements. You know that the bank didn't
actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it
into your pile? They simply went to their computer and
input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They
created, from thin air, a debt which you have to
secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank
is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they
want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio
imposed by the FED.
It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your
friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan
committees that scrutinize you with a microscope
before approving the loan they created from thin air.
What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They
don't want you to understand what they are doing.
People fear what they do not understand. You are
easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and
Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the
income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year
that the FED was created, you get a gold star.
Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to
use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that
debt? The income tax was created to complete the
illusion that real money had been lent and therefore
real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini
So, what can be done? My father taught me that you
should always stand up for what is right, even if you
have to stand up alone.
If "We the People" don't take some action now, there
may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You
should write a letter or send an email to each of your
elected representatives. Many of our elected
representatives do not understand the FED. Once
informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution
specifically says that Congress is the only body that
can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The
US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone
other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information,
how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of
1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to
be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking
cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in
profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever
allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all their prosperity
until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question
is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we
allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"
"The condition upon which [the Creator] hath given liberty to
man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he
breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his
crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
- Bear - This is a responsive post I made to the writer in blue text ('B' in another group), but after reviewing it I thought it might be beneficial for those on tips and tricks.
For Newbies: The most significant lesson I got hard-wired into me (which we all know but sometimes forget we know it) applies to any and all charges: they make a “charge” against you but for “traffic charges” it’s typically not a sworn, formal compliant with witness signature. They keep wanting you to “plea” something but you cannot plea unless you have a sworn, formal compliant which also shows the SPECIFIC LAW you alledgedly trespassed. How on earth can one plea anything when you have no idea of the specific law you’re being charged with trespassing, signed by the witness? IMHO that’s one worth remembering....I didn’t remember it...my friend did and that’s why I was indeed lucky in this case.
B- and Newbies. Get this in your head!!!
In Texas, if you plead without the disclosure of a sworn complaint
and a properly filed information into the proper court of jurisdiction,
You are committing a crime!
(CCRP = TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
Without the presentment of a lawful complaint or lawful information, it is legally impossible to enter a plea of not guilty. The CCRP defines the plea of not guilty as:
"The plea of not guilty shall be construed to be a denial of every material allegation in the indictment or information. Under this plea, evidence to establish the insanity of defendant, and every fact whatever tending to acquit him of the accusation may be introduced, except such facts as are proper for a special plea under Article 27.05." CCRP Art. 27.17 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY CONSTRUED.
Notice is given that without the presentment of a lawful complaint or lawful information, it would be an act of perjury to enter a plea of not guilty in that a plea of not guilty is to be construed to be a denial of every material allegation in the information. The facts of the issue show in the Court record and in your Correspondence that no information has been properly filed in the above stated cases.
Without the presentment of a lawful complaint or lawful information, it is legally impossible to enter a plea of nolo contendere. CCRP defines the plea of nolo contendere as:
"(5) A plea of nolo contendere, the legal effect of which shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty, except that such plea may not be used against the defendant as an admission in any civil suit based upon the growing out of the act upon which the criminal prosecution is based." CCRP Article 27.02 DEFENDANT'S PLEADINGS.
Notice is given that without the presentment of a lawful complaint or a lawful information, it would be an act of perjury to enter a plea of nolo contendere in that a plea of nolo contendere shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty. The facts of the issue show in the Court record and in your Correspondence that no information has been properly filed in the above stated cases. It is therefore legally impossible to determine if a plea of nolo contendere is proper or an act of perjury.
Without the presentment of a lawful complaint or lawful information, it is impossible to determine if a plea of guilty is proper or an act of perjury.
"Impossiblium nulla obligatiio est."
[There is no obligation to perform impossible things. Black's Law Dictionary 7th ed., Appendix A: Legal Maxims, Pg 1642]
To be forced to enter a plea under these circumstances would constitute an act of aggravated perjury which is a third degree felony in violation of the Texas PENAL CODE Art. 37.03 and/or a class A misdemeanor in violation of Art. 37.02, towit:
PENAL CODE Art. 37.02. PERJURY.
"(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement'she makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor."
PENAL CODE Art. 37.03. AGGRAVATED PERJURY.
"(a) A person commits an offenseif he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree."
The insistence (usually badgering) by the magistrate to force you to plead is an enticement for you to commit a felony. This is a insistence on behalf of the magistrate is called "tampering with witness" (which also is a felony) and constitutes an act of "official opression" (which is a misdemeanor) and should be sufficient charges to attack their official bond.
TEXAS PENAL CODE § 36.05. TAMPERING WITH WITNESS. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to influence the witness, he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding or coerces a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding:
(1) to testify falsely;
(2) to withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing;
(3) to elude legal process summoning him to testify or supply evidence;
(4) to absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned; or
(5) to abstain from, discontinue, or delay the prosecution of another.
(b) A witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding commits an offense if he knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit on the representation or understanding that he will do any of the things specified in Subsection (a).
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the benefit received was:
(1) reasonable restitution for damages suffered by the complaining witness as a result of the offense; and
(2) a result of an agreement negotiated with the assistance or acquiescence of an attorney for the state who represented the state in the case.
(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 721, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
TEXAS PENAL CODE § 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or [my note - See: Tex. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 10; ...He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof...."]
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1217, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 16, § 19.01(34), eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
You should report that magistrate immediately to the nearest peace officer, then swear out a formal complaint and give it to the District Attorney or present it to the next impanelled Grand Jury of the county where the felony occurred.
TEXAS PENAL CODE § 38.171. FAILURE TO REPORT FELONY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and
(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:
(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and
(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death. (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.