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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
      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 2 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
        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 3 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
          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 4 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
             
            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 5 of 26 , Jun 1, 2003
              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.