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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: OATH / AUTHORITY / BONDS > PROOF OF ABSENCE OF

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.