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

Property maintenance crackdown yields $131,000 fine

Expand Messages
  • Gary D
    In America i.e. the United States of America the De jure, county of the home of the free and land of the brave. Has died. 1933 +/- it was a slow death
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 20, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      In America i.e. the United States of America the De jure, county
      of the home of the free and land of the brave.

      Has died. 1933 +/- it was a slow death therefore the exact date is unknown.

      However according to Judge Andrew Napolitano is wasn't even six (6) years before
      they (who are they) started to dismantle that Constitution e.g. Bush said just a
      darn piece of paper.


      Now be it know to all we are under a de facto goverment e.g. it is disguised as one, moreover
      it is a/k/a United States i.e. a Corporation that is why the argument of Obama not being born
      a citizen has no bearing as a corporation has not that requirement.

      Therefore fellow landlord's we are in grave danger to becoming extinct.

      Best Gary Ford

      "I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes."

      "I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies." Read in Congress April 3, 1918.



      http://www.citizensvoice.com/arts_living/2.223/property_maintenance_crackdown_yields_results

      Property maintenance crackdown yields results

      Published: June 12, 2009
      "Chances are you've already seen one of those infamous "Priceless" MasterCard commercials by now. You know the ones, those quirky little commercials that list the dollar value of related items before ending with a cute twist that is supposedly "priceless."
      After speaking with some of the Hanover Township commissioners recently, there may be a new commercial in the works just for township residents. Ready for it? OK, here goes:
      A gallon of gas to fill your lawn mower tank - $2.56;
      A box of trash bags to remove the garbage from your yard - $5.50;
      Cost to send a homeowner a certified letter informing them they are in violation of high grass and weed or junk ordinances - $2.80;
      Ignoring the certified letter and not rectifying the complaint - $131,400.
      Following a hearing in front of Judge David Lupas in the Court of Common Pleas, after numerous complaints filed by the township against the owner of a property at 3132 South Main Street in Lower Askam, a "landmark judgment," as described by one township commissioner, was awarded to the township.
      "This is a unique judgment due to the board of commissioners' decision to clean up the township," Solicitor Robert V. Davison said. "It is part of the board's effort to bring all properties up to date with the Uniform Construction Code."
      "And this is just the first of many to come," board president Albert Bagusky added. "(The judgment) really is the culmination of the efforts and hard work of people like Bill (Kunec, housing and maintenance coordinator)."
      Bagusky described the judgment as "the end of a two-year project."
      According to the court order, the township is authorized to, "enter onto the property to remove all junk, wood products, furniture, appliances, construction waste, debris and all disabled vehicles."
      The judgment, according to Davison, represents a fine of $300 for every day (438 days in this instance) the property was not brought up to code from the time notice was given to the property owner.
      "We have another one in the process right now," Bagusky said.
      The owner of a property at 35 Pulaski St., by order of the Court of Common Pleas, has been given 30 days to remove all waste from the property, both inside and out, or face a penalty of $300 per day until the problem is rectified.
      Bagusky said the Pulaski Street property owner has already been in talks with township officials and has shown some initiative to have the property cleaned up. Township code enforcement officers will regularly inspect the property to confirm the necessary actions are being taken.
      "The property owner said she would take care of it," Bagusky said.
      It is the hopes of the commissioners that other property owners currently in violation of nuisance ordinances take notice of the judgment and realize the township will pursue all claims and complaints submitted to them to the fullest extent possible.
      As for the neighbors of the nuisance properties currently under court order, the feeling of satisfaction, knowing they won't have to look at overgrown, vermin infested lawns and piles of unsightly trash for much longer can only be described as priceless. "
       
       
       



      --
      Note to self:   The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts - what we have done.  It is an acknowledgment of the final effects of these acts and thoughts - what we have become.
    • Dale
      ... Lawful/Legal Basis of Ordinances (Editor s Note: This essay was prepared for a party in Deming, New Mexico. This party is accused of violating simple
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Gary D <garytrust@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.citizensvoice.com/arts_living/2.223/property_maintenance_crackdown_yields_results
        >
        >
        > Property maintenance crackdown yields results
        > Published: June 12, 2009
        >

        'Lawful/Legal' Basis of Ordinances

        (Editor's Note: This essay was prepared for a party in Deming, New Mexico. This party is accused of violating simple city ordinances. The following researched document is his reply to the accusations. Although not all cites pertain to Colorado, they nevertheless help us understand the nature of cities, counties, the People, and the role of ordinances.)

        The City of Deming, New Mexico is a municipality, an administrative body, an incorporated town with certain privileges but has no Sovereign powers. The City's privileges are quite limited by its master, the State, and like any artificial being, it must petition its master for any privileges it desires.

        Since a municipality, city, or town has no sovereignty it cannot create laws pertaining to one who does not come within its purview. It can only enforce the laws of its master (LAWS OF THE STATE). However, the city can regulate those artificial beings it creates or natural persons it employs.

        In this case of simple ordinance violation the city of Deming, New Mexico has no authority of law as the Accused is not an employee of the City nor a created being of the City; nor has he a license, permit, or any other agreement or contract with the City. Therefore, this proposed default is in direct violation of the laws of the state and cannot be enforced against this free and natural person.

        It is axiomatic that no municipality can create any code that is in conflict with its creator's law. For example, sister Idaho State Constitution states:

        "Any county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws." Article 12, Section 2, Idaho State Const.

        This has been upheld numerous times by the Sister State Idaho Supreme Court and a few of the cases are as follows:

        "This provision of the Constitution authorizes the council of Boise City to make and enforce ordinances that are not in conflict with the general laws, and forbids the making and enforcing of any ordinance in conflict with the general laws." (emphasis added) In re Ridenbaugh, 5 Idaho 371, 375.

        "This power, vested by direct grant, is as broad as that vested in the legislature itself, subject to two exceptions: It must be local to the county or municipality and must not conflict with general laws." (emphasis added) State v. Musser, 67 Idaho 214, 219.

        The Boise City Code as in Deming, is administrative in nature, and only applies to those it regulates or employs. If this city code were construed to apply to persons other than those mentioned, it would violate the rights of other classes of persons and exceed its authority under Article 12, Section 2, of the Idaho State Constitution and IC 50-302 which states in part: "Cities shall make all such ordinances, by laws, rules, regulation (regulations) and resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state of Idaho.... to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and industry."

        In this regard, it is only fitting and proper that the city of Deming can regulate those whom it controls. IC 50-302 talks about the "welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce, and industry." There can be no doubt that the similar codes apply to those artificial entities as well as natural persons hired by the city. However, the City Code cannot be stretched to apply to other persons not within its control (State v. Musser) or there exists a conflict between the State Code and City Code.

        Or perhaps the City of Deming believes their code supersedes the N.M. Statutes, and that the N.M. Statutes does not pertain within its geographical boundaries. Therefore, the City code abrogates the State Code. If so, the City's logic is ad absurdism.

        Only the legislature can pass general laws or laws of the state as no where in the Indiana Constitution did the Sovereign People give any entity, other than the state legislature, the ability to pass laws of the state. Local municipalities.(counties, cities, and towns) were only authorized to make regulations.

        Regulations only pertain to certain classes of persons. Regulations are defined as: "Such are issued by various governmental departments to carry out the intent of the law." Black's law Dictionary, 5th edition, p. 1156

        "Regulations are implementary to existing law." Gibson Wine Co. v. Snyder, 194 F. 2d 329, 331

        Regulations then, are things issued to carry out the intent of law but of and by themselves are not law. In short, they can only be considered administrative procedures and edicts. "Agencies issue regulations to guide the activity of those regulated by the agency and of their own employees and to ensure uniform application of the law." (emphasis added) Black's supra Regulations, within constitutional provisions that municipalities may enforce such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws, refers to rules relating for instance, to operation of a police department,..." (emphasis added) State ex rel. Lynch v. City of Cleveland, 132 N.E. 2d 118, 121

        Regulations then, are written to guide a specific agency in its operation, to guide those being regulated by the agency, and to guide the employees of the agency. In the case of the city of Deming, their code is to guide in the operation of the corporation, to guide those controlled by the corporation, and to guide the employees of the corporation----not the Citizenry at large. "Regulations are not the work of the legislature and do not have the effect of law..." Black's supra.

        "The terms by-laws, ordinances, and municipal regulations have substantially the same meaning, and are the laws of the corporate district made by the authorized body, in distinction from the general laws of the state. They are local regulations for the government of the inhabitants of the particular place. They are not laws in the legal sense, though binding on the community affected. They are not prescribed by the supreme power of the state, from which alone a law can emanate, and therefore cannot be statutes, which are the written will of the Legislature, expressed in the form necessary to constitute parts of the law." (emphasis added) Rutherford v. Swink, 35 S.W. 554, 555.

        "An ordinance of a municipal corporation is a local law, and binds persons within the

        jurisdiction of the corporation." (emphasis added) Pittsburgh, C., C. & St L. Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser, 71 N.E. 218, 221; Pennsylvania Co. v. Stegemeier, 20 N.E. 843.

        "An ordinance is a local law, a rule of conduct prospective in its operation, applying to persons and things subject to local jurisdiction." (emphasis added) C.I.R. v. Schnackenberg, C.C.A., 90 F. 2d 175, 176.

        "ordinances...are laws passed by the governing body of a municipal corporation for the regulation of the corporation." (emphasis added) Bills v. City of Goshen, 20 N.E. 115, 117.

        "The terms ordinance, by-law, and municipal regulation...are local regulations for the government of the inhabitants of a particular place, and though given the force of law by the charter for the purposes of the municipal government, yet relate to that solely, and prosecutions for their violation have no reference, as a general rule to the administration of criminal justice of the state." (emphasis added) State v. Lee, 13 N.W. 913. "ordinances are laws of municipality made by authorized municipal body in distinction from general laws of the state and constitute local regulations for government of inhabitants of particular place." (emphasis added) State v. Thomas, 156 N.W. 2d 745.

        "...defining the term criminal offense as any offense for which any punishment by imprisonment or fine, or both, may by law be inflicted, a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offense...an ordinance being a regulation adopted by a municipal corporation and not a law in the legal sense." (emphasis added) Meredith v. Whillock, 158 S.W. 1061, 1062.

        "A city ordinance is not a law of the same character as a statute. It is merely a regulation; a rule of conduct passed by the common council for the direction and supervision of its citizens." (emphasis added) People v. Gardner, 106 N.W. 541, 545. "An ordinance prescribes a permanent rule for conduct of government." (emphasis added) 76 N.W. 2d 1, 5; 61 A.L.R. 2d 583.

        "An ordinance is not, in the constitutional sense, a public law. It is a mere local rule or by-law, a police or domestic regulation, devoid in many respects of the characteristics of the public or general laws." (emphasis added) State v. Fourcade, 13 So. 187, 191; McInerney v. City of Denver, 29 P. 516.

        Since regulations are the work of a corporation, they can only apply to members of that corporation. From Sister State Idaho IC 50-302 we know that, for example, the City of Boise can only make regulations:

        "to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and industry."

        IC 50-302 does not even mention persons either natural or artificial but it does specifically mention the corporation and its trade, commerce, and industry. Trade commerce and industry are all artificial entities and either licensed by the state and city or are corporations both of which have an agreement with the state or city and through that agreement, those businesses must adhere to the City Code and/or ordinances. However, Natural Citizens who are not engaged in trade, commerce, or industry and do not have any agreements with their state or city, cannot be bound by the City Code as in this case.

        Since I am a natural American and not a member of the municipal corporation nor licensed by, nor have any other legal connection with the city, I am therefore not under the provisions of the Ordinances of Deming, New Mexico.

        Free and natural Citizens are only subject to the New, Mexico Statutes, the laws of the State under the provisions of thereof that are not in conflict with the Law of the Land (Constitution for the United States of America).

        It only follows that if a municipality has the authority to create a code, that code can only apply to its subjects or members. As the code pertains to those persons, it may grant them privileges and regulate their actions but cannot compel a natural American to waive a right in order to accept a privilege.

        However, as a free and natural person I am not a member, subject, or slave of the municipality and in no way depend upon the City for my welfare, nor am I a corporation, or involved with trade, commerce, or industry (see sister State Idaho IC 50-302) with or within the City of Deming, and I absolutely refuses to enter into any foreign jurisdiction asserted by the City for its subjects, employees, and members. I would like to remind you that:

        "A municipal corporation possesses only such powers as the state confers upon it,.. "Any ambiguity of doubt arising out of the terms used by the legislature must be resolved in favor of the granting power. Regard must also be had to constitutional provisions intended to secure the liberty and to protect the rights of citizens..." (emphasis added) State v. Frederick, 28 Idaho 709, 715.

        In this regard, the state legislature must preserve and protect the rights of citizens at all times. The State must maintain legislative power over all citizens throughout the state and therefore the laws of the state are the only laws applicable to natural Citizens.

        "It is settled law, that the legislature in granting it, does not divest itself of any power over the inhabitants of the district which it possessed before the charter was granted. Laramie County v. Albany County et al, 92 U.S. 307, 308.

        The City is forbidden from making any regulations or from enforcing any ordinance in conflict with the general laws (re Ridenbaugh, Supra) and the general law (IC 50-302) of Idaho has not granted the city of Boise the power to make laws pertaining to free and natural citizens. It can only make regulations to affect its employees and the trade, commerce and industry it regulates. I, John Q. Public, for all intents and purposes am a merchant and trader At-Law, on a Cash basis, and am a Free and Natural Person. As matters of fact concerning my status I state the following:

        1. I operate at the common law on a cash basis, with NO RECOURSE to Standard Lawful Money of the United States.

        2. My only means of converting my property (check) into a useable medium is by exchanging my check for other property in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. The requirement for this conversion is an endorsement in the form of my signature.

        3. The right to labor, as well as the right to keep and enjoy the fruits of my labor, are inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. This is my position as concerns my labor, founded upon much research and study of law.

        4. I expressly deny and repudiate any enjoyment of a corporate privilege to conduct inter or intra-state commerce that may be presumed from the fact of the above-mentioned conversion. As shown above, this form of exchange of property is a necessity and not in any wise a convenience, in my circumstance. I demand and assert all my rights at law at all times and waive none of them.

        5. I reserve my Common Law right "Without Prejudice" under the Uniform Commercial Code Sections §§ 1-207 & 1-103, not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, and furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any un-revealed contract or commercial agreement. Therefore, I respectfully, but firmly suggest that you withdraw your threats immediately, as I am not intimidated by your staff of attorneys nor your threats. I- will not tolerate being intimidated into subjection/subservience and/or compelled performance at the expense of my Constitutional and unalienable rights, particularly where there is no obligation of acceptance on my part.

        Sincerely,
        John Q. Public, Pro Per
      • Frog Farmer
        ... contradict himself and prove he s lying! ] As matters of fact concerning ... This is a lie for anyone with a checking account, or FRNs in their pocket.
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 27, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > I, John Q. Public, for all intents
          > and purposes am a merchant and trader At-Law, on a Cash basis, and am
          > a Free and Natural Person. [FF interjects: in a moment he'll
          contradict himself and prove he's lying! ] As matters of fact concerning
          > my status I state the following:
          >
          > 1. I operate at the common law on a cash basis, with NO RECOURSE to
          > Standard Lawful Money of the United States.

          This is a lie for anyone with a checking account, or FRNs in their
          pocket. There can be other evidences of participation in the equity
          jurisdiction as well.

          > 2. My only means of converting my property (check) [FF sez: this
          proves the lie of "at law on a cash basis] into a useable
          > medium is by exchanging my check for other property in the form of
          > Federal Reserve Notes. The requirement for this conversion is an
          > endorsement in the form of my signature.

          It's a requirement to prove you surrender your right to payment and that
          you take discounted commercial debt instruments in a speculation that
          you can later profit. If someone does not appreciate the ramifications
          of entering equity by accepting and trading in commercial paper, and
          does not understand what "endorsement" means, whose fault is that, the
          parents' or the school's fault? Is it the fault of the 18-year-old who
          never wanted to know?

          > 3. The right to labor, as well as the right to keep and enjoy the
          > fruits of my labor, are inalienable rights guaranteed by the
          > Constitution of the United States. This is my position as concerns my
          > labor, founded upon much research and study of law.

          Even so he decides to lower his supposed free status to slave by taking
          the position of "employee" instead of being responsible for himself. If
          he wanted real money he could arrange for it. I do.

          > 4. I expressly deny and repudiate any enjoyment of a corporate
          > privilege to conduct inter or intra-state commerce that may be
          > presumed from the fact of the above-mentioned conversion.

          Reminds me of this guy who claims to be a vegetarian yet eats hamburgers
          and prefers Burger King over MacDonald's.

          > As shown
          > above, this form of exchange of property is a necessity and not in any
          > wise a convenience, in my circumstance.

          It is not a necessity. I am proof. And real math proves it as well.
          FRNs are less than 10% of the possibilities for use. How can anyone be
          forced to use less than 10% of anything? In most people's minds,
          electronic blips ARE FRNs! But they are NOT!

          > I demand and assert all my
          > rights at law at all times and waive none of them.

          You waive them by becoming an employee, by taking a check instead of
          demanding payment, by entering into your signature card agreement at
          your bank, by endorsing your employer's debt to yourself, and if you go
          so far as taking FRNs instead of rolls of quarters or other coin, you
          waive your right to payment and elect to use discharge of debt instead,
          rationalizations because of convenience, expedience or ignorance
          notwithstanding. And if you have any driver's license or registration
          on your car, this proves the lie as well.

          > 5. I reserve my Common Law right "Without Prejudice" under the Uniform
          > Commercial Code Sections �� 1-207 & 1-103,

          Not only do you have the sections wrong, but you admit here to invoking
          the equity jurisdiction of the ancient international Law Merchant, which
          is NOT common law! The UCC is "model" legislation and each state has its
          own version. But this person didn't use the state law, but instead
          misquoted the model boilerplate. Talk about subservience!

          > not to be compelled to
          > perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly,
          > voluntarily, and intentionally,

          At least we have his acceptance of the check and his own endorsement on
          the check to disprove that.

          Sorry, but not many people can use George Gordon's letters as if they
          were their own. I can use that language because for me it is true, but
          I don't make the mistake of claiming to remain outside a jurisdiction
          and then provide proof that I enter it voluntarily. There is no
          necessity to be an employee or enter into use of imaginary debt as
          monetary instruments. Again folks, Google "Kahre" and GET IT! HJR192
          is repealed, and gold and silver coins are minted. The government
          counts on you not having a clue, as they are prosecuting Kahre yet again
          after losing previously. They are betting another jury would be
          ignorant of the money issues, as most are.

          I recently received a message from a local Republican group saying that
          we needed to get rid of legal tender laws and get back to gold and
          silver coinage. I provided proof that HJR192 was repealed, and provided
          current photos of currently minted gold and silver coins. I asked which
          legal tender laws were causing anyone any trouble. It's been two weeks
          and I have not yet received any comment or reply, and no messages
          proposing any victory celebrations.

          Regards,

          FF
        • dave
          Some comments below.... ... From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frog Farmer Sent: Saturday, June 27,
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 28, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Some comments below....

            -----Original Message-----
            From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Frog Farmer
            Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:16 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Property maintenance crackdown yields
            $131,000 fine


            > I, John Q. Public, for all intents
            > and purposes am a merchant and trader At-Law, on a Cash basis, and am
            > a Free and Natural Person. [FF interjects: in a moment he'll
            contradict himself and prove he's lying! ] As matters of fact concerning
            > my status I state the following:
            >
            > 1. I operate at the common law on a cash basis, with NO RECOURSE to
            > Standard Lawful Money of the United States.

            This is a lie for anyone with a checking account, or FRNs in their
            pocket. There can be other evidences of participation in the equity
            jurisdiction as well.

            [DAVE: The term cash equates to money or equivalent. FRN's are considered
            money within a certain territory and equivalent {in trade} elsewhere. A
            French franc is considered money within France and is traded as money
            elsewhere because it has a certain value in exchange. Trading in French
            francs does not righteously place one within any jurisdiction of France or
            its laws.]

            > 2. My only means of converting my property (check) [FF sez: this
            proves the lie of "at law on a cash basis] into a useable
            > medium is by exchanging my check for other property in the form of
            > Federal Reserve Notes. The requirement for this conversion is an
            > endorsement in the form of my signature.

            It's a requirement to prove you surrender your right to payment and that
            you take discounted commercial debt instruments in a speculation that
            you can later profit. If someone does not appreciate the ramifications
            of entering equity by accepting and trading in commercial paper, and
            does not understand what "endorsement" means, whose fault is that, the
            parents' or the school's fault? Is it the fault of the 18-year-old who
            never wanted to know?

            [Dave: The measure of a free society is the number of alternatives available
            to achieve freedom. Government is about limitation and forcing one to
            chose--ideally for government--only one choice. It's actually illogical--for
            without choice available, there is no choice. We see this type of action
            from government: "Oh you have choice. You can chose to trade in our notes.
            Yes, I admit they are everywhere and that we don't inform you of other
            choice and yes, we don't make it convenient for other choice, and yes, we
            imply other choice is not legal and yes, we encourage our banking and
            employer partners to only indicate same choice. But still we claim--when you
            pin us down--that you have choice." This behavior is called DECEPTION. And
            so it creates the ACTUALITY and the PERCEPTION of what he feels: As choice
            becomes less, one can imply nothing to one's action of exercising that
            choice. For example: Many people sign-up to marriage licenses. Ignorantly
            they marry the state don't they? But why do they do so? Because they have
            been led to believe that there is not OTHER choice to be an honorable member
            of society. Is that their fault? Should they be held to same? But what can
            one say of the government who practices deception in this manner by
            encouraging NO CHOICE disguised as choice?]

            > 3. The right to labor, as well as the right to keep and enjoy the
            > fruits of my labor, are inalienable rights guaranteed by the
            > Constitution of the United States. This is my position as concerns my
            > labor, founded upon much research and study of law.

            Even so he decides to lower his supposed free status to slave by taking
            the position of "employee" instead of being responsible for himself. If
            he wanted real money he could arrange for it. I do.

            [Dave: Employment is "at will"; slavery is not.]

            > 4. I expressly deny and repudiate any enjoyment of a corporate
            > privilege to conduct inter or intra-state commerce that may be
            > presumed from the fact of the above-mentioned conversion.

            Reminds me of this guy who claims to be a vegetarian yet eats hamburgers
            and prefers Burger King over MacDonald's.

            [Dave: Why do people in the freedom movement stick-themselves to the concept
            of presumption and adhesion? It's one thing for some usurper on earth to
            claim this; it's quite another to personally accept it as one's own policy.
            Its defeated on face value: If adhesion is valid, then no one could be held
            to anything--they would be adhered to a predecessor adhesion.]

            > As shown
            > above, this form of exchange of property is a necessity and not in any
            > wise a convenience, in my circumstance.

            It is not a necessity. I am proof. And real math proves it as well.
            FRNs are less than 10% of the possibilities for use. How can anyone be
            forced to use less than 10% of anything? In most people's minds,
            electronic blips ARE FRNs! But they are NOT!

            [Dave: Yes, you are proof and that's great. The person who perceives he has
            bars in his room might legitimately feel he is forced to remain in his cell.
            He is perhaps ignorant but most likely innocent. His action based on such
            ignorance should not largely be viewed as FULL choice. In order to exercise
            choice, one must be aware of such choice and not held against it's
            disclosure. The greatest teacher the world has ever known defeated this evil
            promulgated as policy {for you} by government with one word: Forgiveness]

            > I demand and assert all my
            > rights at law at all times and waive none of them.

            You waive them by becoming an employee, by taking a check instead of
            demanding payment, by entering into your signature card agreement at
            your bank, by endorsing your employer's debt to yourself, and if you go
            so far as taking FRNs instead of rolls of quarters or other coin, you
            waive your right to payment and elect to use discharge of debt instead,
            rationalizations because of convenience, expedience or ignorance
            notwithstanding. And if you have any driver's license or registration
            on your car, this proves the lie as well.

            [Dave: Never loose the focus. You can't waive something for which you
            perceive and believe--for right or wrong--that you weren't given full
            choice-of to begin with. Don't believe in the wizard's soup.]

            > 5. I reserve my Common Law right "Without Prejudice" under the Uniform
            > Commercial Code Sections §§ 1-207 & 1-103,

            Not only do you have the sections wrong, but you admit here to invoking
            the equity jurisdiction of the ancient international Law Merchant, which
            is NOT common law! The UCC is "model" legislation and each state has its
            own version. But this person didn't use the state law, but instead
            misquoted the model boilerplate. Talk about subservience!

            > not to be compelled to
            > perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly,
            > voluntarily, and intentionally,

            At least we have his acceptance of the check and his own endorsement on
            the check to disprove that.

            Sorry, but not many people can use George Gordon's letters as if they
            were their own. I can use that language because for me it is true, but
            I don't make the mistake of claiming to remain outside a jurisdiction
            and then provide proof that I enter it voluntarily. There is no
            necessity to be an employee or enter into use of imaginary debt as
            monetary instruments. Again folks, Google "Kahre" and GET IT! HJR192
            is repealed, and gold and silver coins are minted. The government
            counts on you not having a clue, as they are prosecuting Kahre yet again
            after losing previously. They are betting another jury would be
            ignorant of the money issues, as most are.

            I recently received a message from a local Republican group saying that
            we needed to get rid of legal tender laws and get back to gold and
            silver coinage. I provided proof that HJR192 was repealed, and provided
            current photos of currently minted gold and silver coins. I asked which
            legal tender laws were causing anyone any trouble. It's been two weeks
            and I have not yet received any comment or reply, and no messages
            proposing any victory celebrations.

            Regards,

            FF







            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Frog Farmer
            ... Yes, it does, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes people mistake opposites for each other, like thinking that the absence of a dollar is equivalent to
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 29, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Dave commented:
              > [DAVE: The term cash equates to money or equivalent.

              Yes, it does, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes people mistake
              opposites for each other, like thinking that the absence of a dollar is
              equivalent to a dollar. In mathematics, using "absolute numbers", it
              is! But in reality, it is not. Think back to what you might have
              thought the day you noticed the first clad coin mixed in with the silver
              coins in change handed to you. What was the money that day, the real
              thing, or a paper or metal token representing it? That day, did you
              feel that a given volume of copper-nickel was "equivalent" to more
              silver than it takes to make a finger ring? Do you feel it is today?

              > FRN's are considered money within a certain territory
              > and equivalent {in trade} elsewhere.

              What is it that victims of fraud "consider" before determining their
              victim status? This assumes that they eventually find out.

              > A
              > French franc is considered money within France and is traded as money
              > elsewhere because it has a certain value in exchange. Trading in
              > French
              > francs does not righteously place one within any jurisdiction of
              > France or its laws.]

              I wouldn't know that either way; never been there or read any French law
              like you have. In this next section, I marvel at your ability to
              channel the mind of government:

              > [Dave: The measure of a free society is the number of alternatives
              > available to achieve freedom. Government is about limitation and
              forcing one to
              > chose--ideally for government--only one choice. It's actually
              > illogical--for
              > without choice available, there is no choice. We see this type of
              > action
              > from government: "Oh you have choice. You can chose to trade in our
              > notes.
              > Yes, I admit they are everywhere and that we don't inform you of other
              > choice and yes, we don't make it convenient for other choice, and yes,
              > we
              > imply other choice is not legal and yes, we encourage our banking and
              > employer partners to only indicate same choice. But still we claim--
              > when you
              > pin us down--that you have choice." This behavior is called DECEPTION.
              > And
              > so it creates the ACTUALITY and the PERCEPTION of what he feels: As
              > choice
              > becomes less, one can imply nothing to one's action of exercising that
              > choice. For example: Many people sign-up to marriage licenses.
              > Ignorantly
              > they marry the state don't they? But why do they do so? Because they
              > have
              > been led to believe that there is not OTHER choice to be an honorable
              > member
              > of society. Is that their fault? Should they be held to same? But what
              > can
              > one say of the government who practices deception in this manner by
              > encouraging NO CHOICE disguised as choice?]

              It is everyone's own fault for believing whatever they believe. If not,
              they do not own their own minds, right? If this is the reality, then
              every time we meet a new person our first question would have to be,
              "does he still own his own mind, or did they already get to him?"

              Maybe things are so different than I experienced that it is indeed rare
              for someone to have his own thoughts anymore! Poor devils!

              > [Dave: Employment is "at will"; slavery is not.]

              That is not exactly true, friend.

              "Slavery implies involuntary servitude - a state of bondage; the
              ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor
              and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a
              legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services."
              [Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)]

              "Being non-redeemable but accepted as a claim on the public's goods and
              services it (the FRN) represents a 100% confiscation of the public's
              wealth without compensation." - Merrill Jenkins

              > [Dave: Why do people in the freedom movement stick-themselves to the
              > concept of presumption and adhesion?

              Because law and its principles are important to them?

              > It's one thing for some usurper on earth
              > to claim this; it's quite another to personally accept it as one's own
              > policy. Its defeated on face value: If adhesion is valid, then no
              > one could be held to anything--they would be adhered to a
              > predecessor adhesion.]

              This does not follow either. I have an adhesion contract on a prominent
              sign on my property. I would prefer that no one test its efficacy.

              > [Dave: Yes, you are proof and that's great. The person who perceives
              > he has
              > bars in his room might legitimately feel he is forced to remain in his
              > cell.
              > He is perhaps ignorant but most likely innocent. His action based on
              > such
              > ignorance should not largely be viewed as FULL choice. In order to
              > exercise
              > choice, one must be aware of such choice and not held against it's
              > disclosure. The greatest teacher the world has ever known defeated
              > this evil
              > promulgated as policy {for you} by government with one word:
              > Forgiveness]

              The problem with assuming that everyone is ignorant or blind or
              hallucinating their own bars is that dysfunctionality used to be a
              minority condition. You make it sound like it's normalcy today.
              Society has ways of dealing with and protecting those unable to protect
              themselves, like babies, the retarded, or the insane. Meanwhile, those
              adults who can read and write constitutions and statutes and contracts
              take advantage of the concept of written laws.

              > [Dave: Never loose the focus. You can't waive something for which you
              > perceive and believe--for right or wrong--that you weren't given full
              > choice-of to begin with. Don't believe in the wizard's soup.]

              If you are perceiving and believing wrong already, you've already lost
              your focus. What you call "the wizard's soup" is really just the
              English language. Many prefer to have nothing to do with it today, that
              I will readily admit! But the fact that lawyers and fliers need to use
              it will work a disadvantage on those who refuse to use it in
              self-defense.

              I didn't write the rules, but I claim the right to hold those who did to
              them.

              Regards,

              FF
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.