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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Demand that knowledge group members teach us what we want to know...

Expand Messages
  • Mike
    I, for one, appreciate the wisdom shared for free on this and other forums. I fully support the position that if someone wants one on one consultation then
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 7, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I, for one, appreciate the wisdom shared for free on this and other forums. I fully support the position that if someone wants one on one consultation then charging a fee for that time is reasonable.

      I was forced into deep waters two years ago when some debt collectors filed a federal lawsuit to collect over a million dollars from me. I never had that money, so how did they "do it"? I was really scared. I struggled to understand "Strawman", "Admiralty", "Person", "Redemption" like all "newbies". I am not convinced 'anything' is "clear cut" except what is in the law, law dictionary's and case precedent. I have no need to argue with anyone about these issues, the evidence in my case is - what it is. Understanding those concepts (nor arguing them in court) does not help you win cases, destroying "presumptions of correctness" in the 'evidence'does.

      Google Scholar is easy and free. You can even type in phrases and it will highlight them in the text. Use the "Find text" feature in your browser and you don't have to read through the whole document to find the text you are looking for. Just make sure you don't take it out of context.

      http://scholar.google.com/

      I am also 'guilty' of writing to FF of list seeking feedback on my thoughts for my cases. I did not want to expose my case for public consumption. I was given a proposal for his time. While I wish I could have afforded his fees for "one on one", I could not. I did the next best thing I could think of: I searched his posts on this list and studied them. He also suggested I study:

      http://supremelaw.org/

      There is something like 50,000 pages on that site alone.

      FF says: ""Cryptic" just means that you cannot understand it. It also means that
      there is an answer there but you just cannot see it. Maybe you need to
      ask a question or two then. I do not claim to be an expert, but I won
      every case I decided to win. I used available information. "

      I concur. The 'system' is complicated. It requires a paradigm shift of two before you can even get your head around it. If I am struggling to 'understand' FF and can't, it's probably my own lack of study.

      Things are much simpler nowadays: You can literally type a question into Google and find answers. It will be up to you to sift through the mis-information in order to find out what is going on. This is why extensive study - on your own - is important. You have to figure it out. You cannot rely on someone else' argument for your case.

      FF says: "They could fight their cases as best they can and cause as much cost and
      expense to their opposition as possible."

      This could easily be the best advice there is. How do you do this?

      "Today's FREE tip: don't forget your local court rules!" Attorney's don't know the law, they know procedure. This is where 'they' have caught me more than once.

      There are lots of really valuable sources of information out there for people who want answers.

      In addition to members of this list, I like Alfred Adask, "The Informer" and "The Inhabitant"'s writings. I have learned a lot reading other peoples posts and The Inhabitants and FF's responses to them.

      If you can't beat them at the 'IMOC' (thank you, FF) you ought to learn how to stop them administratively. The Inhabitant writes about this frequently and "cryptically" explains how to unravel the fraud. I am still learning...

      I repeat it for the fact that I am snipping the rest, FF's short list really provides the 'solution' if we just learn to 'nip it in the bud'.

      "1. In the Initial Moment Of Confrontation (IMOC), disqualify all
      antagonists.

      Anyone here been there; done that?? answer: yes

      2. Avoid all FRNs.

      Anyone besides me on that boat? answer: yes

      3. Never sign a ticket; always go see the magistrate immediately.

      Anyone ever been there; done that?? answer: yes

      4. Never waive any right for any cause or reason.

      Who has tried that one?answer: hmmm, I think I am gonna have to be more assertive...

      5. Don't grant jurisdiction through speech or actions.

      This is how most people lose before they start. answer: yes,  I need to do better

      6. Make a timeline for all cases. Identify at least 100 potential steps
      in your case.

      Nobody I've recommended this to yet has shown me theirs. answer: no, it really does sound like a lot of steps, can we work on a list for the forum (and me, of course)?

      7. Demand counsel for any in-custody interrogation. answer: yes

      Ever try that? It's fun!"

      I agree, it is fun.

      Michael

      IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email message, and any attachments, is intended only for the individual/entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and destroy all originals and copies of this message. Nothing contained within, or inferred by, this communication is to be construed to be legal, financial or tax advice. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any kind or work product privilege.

    • Frog Farmer
      ... In California it could then be used as the complaint. Since otherwise they couldn t produce one, why make it easy for them? ... Is that so? What if I
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 7, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Esenter asked:

        > Why would you not sign the ticket?

        In California it could then be used as the complaint.
        Since otherwise they couldn't produce one, why make it easy for them?

        > All the magistrate will do is
        > determine whether or not probable cause existed for the arrest.

        Is that so? What if I disqualify him first for not having his oath or
        bond in order? What if I make them go through the process outlined in
        the Penal Code where the "officer" has to "lay the complaint before the
        magistrate" and I haven't cooperated by making one for him to use? His
        shorthand form will fail as a complaint absent my consent and
        cooperation, as you would give it.

        > In such cases, probable cause means whatever the cop says.

        Too bad you think that. It means you have no chance to disprove any
        lies.

        > It is a
        > rubber stamp. Then, you must either sign the ticket (ie., be released
        > on your own recognizance), or put up a bail bond.

        No, you never have to sign a promise to appear or pay bail. Doing one
        makes admissions and confessions and makes you liable for a misdemeanor
        later if you fail to appear, and the other grants jurisdiction.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Frog Farmer
        ... Make a list of all the possible steps in your case and make each one cost them. Make them take time. Make your opponents confused and make errors. You
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 7, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike wrote:

          > FF says: "They could fight their cases as best they can and cause as
          > much cost and
          > expense to their opposition as possible."
          >
          > This could easily be the best advice there is. How do you do this?

          Make a list of all the possible steps in your case and make each one
          cost them. Make them take time. Make your opponents confused and make
          errors. You only have to deal with the ones that pass your
          disqualification process.

          > If you can't beat them at the 'IMOC' (thank you, FF) you ought to
          > learn how to stop them administratively. The Inhabitant writes about
          > this frequently and "cryptically" explains how to unravel the fraud. I
          > am still learning...

          The administrative level is where the live human points out his status
          and demands his rights in a timely fashion. It is usually assumed that
          they are dealing with some corporate entity, and I can usually get an
          admission and confession of that status, true or not, out of most people
          very quickly. People fail to put everything into that administrative
          record, and they save it for court where it is then too late.

          > I repeat it for the fact that I am snipping the rest, FF's short list
          > really provides the 'solution' if we just learn to 'nip it in the
          > bud'.

          I've been amazed at how effective disqualifying everyone is. But it has
          to occur immediately before any official actions are taken, or they
          stand to make more work for you later.

          > 4. Never waive any right for any cause or reason.
          >
          > Who has tried that one? answer: hmmm, I think I am gonna have to be
          > more assertive...

          Ask, "why do you need me to waive a right? Can you legally obligate me
          to waive a right?"

          > 5. Don't grant jurisdiction through speech or actions.
          >
          > This is how most people lose before they start. answer: yes, I need
          > to do better

          This is the main reason for losses, if you ask me.

          > 6. Make a timeline for all cases. Identify at least 100 potential
          > steps in your case.
          >
          > Nobody I've recommended this to yet has shown me theirs. answer: no,
          > it really does sound like a lot of steps, can we work on a list for
          > the forum (and me, of course)?

          It's really a small list, because many of the steps can be further
          broken down into others. It's easy to make a list. Put down any step
          you can think of, then think of something that could come before it and
          after it. Arraignment comes before setting a trial date. Arraignment
          can be broken down to at least four steps. More steps are revealed
          reading the statutes and court rules. In California in the last 30
          years I have yet to see a real arraignment where the defendant didn't
          railroad himself by waiving his rights or consenting to code violations
          on the part of his antagonists. Not one. And even in capital murder
          cases, the attorneys waive the rights for the fools.

          When you go to court and stand like a deer in the headlights, you will
          lose. You must take control of the court and the procedure. This is
          why a timeline / list of steps helps. When they roll over one, you roll
          it right back and don't let them off the hook.

          I could probably think of twenty steps between IMOC and trial, all
          providing an opportunity to win or lose.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Jake
              The truth is you may have taxable income with or without the number. However, with no number, any taxable income would put you in the position of being
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 8, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

               > The truth is you may have taxable income with or without the number. However, with no number, any taxable income would put you in the position of being subject to backup withholding and/or having tax withheld based on the presumption of no exemptions. 


            This is true, but there are ways to avoid "backup withholding", although you'll usually have to fill out a form declaring that it doesn't apply to you / your activity & why.  


            Regarding a particular S.S. Admin. letter which said that a person with no SSN would have no taxable income, that letter was written to the grandson of a man who had died & the grandson was wanting to know if there were any S.S. "benefits" that might be available.  I don't recall what the grandfather had done for a living, but he had never gotten a SSN in his life, which of course means that neither he nor anybody he ever worked for paid anything into S.S. & he never filed a tax return.  Simply put, he never got into "the system" in the 1st place & there couldn't possibly be any "benefits" available to any surviving family member - as far as "the system" was concerned, that man never existed.


            I know he wasn't Amish, but if you want to see some similar things, read the cases about Amish people - the ones who were declared to be "employers" lost their cases, but private individuals who are farmers, carpenters, etc. in their own communities don't have to be in "the system".  And if you dig into the statutes, you'll see that while an employee may not be "liable" for any tax, the employer is - the difference being Subtitle A "income" taxes vs. Subtitle C "employment" taxes.  So in an Amish situation, if a man has 7 sons & they all work with him out in the fields on the family farm, is Dad an "employer" & are his sons "employees"?  The Gov't. says yes.  


            There are some very interesting arguments regarding such situations, but the point is that while an employer is required to file certain tax forms & pay certain taxes, an employee most likely is not - but he's not going to get the job if he doesn't supply a SSN & volunteer to have certain amounts withheld from his pay.  And someone who either does not have or does not use a SSN is not in "the system".  Now if he engages in a "taxable activity" such as the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of alcohol, tobacco or firearms, that will be a problem, but it shouldn't be for someone engaging in an activity that's a matter of common right.  Or for someone who may own something like a gas station that also sells beer & cigarettes - the business itself will need a taxpayer ID number, will have to send in forms, report sales, taxes collected, etc., but the individual owner does not.


            Again I say get the possessive out of your vocabulary - if you do it right, there is no "MINE".  If the business you're engaged in is involved in a "taxable activity", let the business deal with that & if you need to hire a CPA to handle the bookwork, tax forms, etc., then have the business hire a CPA.  In some situations, the CPA is an officer of the S. corp. that runs the business & all bank statements, tax forms, etc. go straight to them - not to the individual who started the business & their name doesn't appear on any co. paperwork, tax forms, etc.  Personal is over here, business is over there & if you do it right, you can't tie the 2 together.  And again, there is no "one size fits all" way to do it, but if you examine your situation closely enough & make whatever changes are necessary, you can eliminate a LOT of problems before they ever arise.


            ~ ~ ~   


            ---
          • esenter
            ... From: Frog Farmer To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 12:26 AM Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Demand that knowledge group
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 8, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 12:26 AM
              Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Demand that knowledge group members teach us what we want to know...

               

              Esenter asked:

              > Why would you not sign the ticket?

              In California it could then be used as the complaint.
              Since otherwise they couldn't produce one, why make it easy for them?

              You are getting way ahead of the game.  It is not difficult to file a complaint.  But we are talking about warrantless arrests.  When a cop pulls you over for an alleged traffic offense, he has made a warrantless arrest.  The only issue at this time is whether you are going to jail or you will be released "on your own recognizance".  By signing the ticket, all you have done is agreed to appear.  You have waived no rights.  You can always bring up any other issue at a later time.

              > All the magistrate will do is
              > determine whether or not probable cause existed for the arrest.

              Is that so? What if I disqualify him first for not having his oath or
              bond in order? What if I make them go through the process outlined in
              the Penal Code where the "officer" has to "lay the complaint before the
              magistrate" and I haven't cooperated by making one for him to use? His
              shorthand form will fail as a complaint absent my consent and
              cooperation, as you would give it.

              Again, you waive no rights by signing a ticket.  All you have done is agreed to appear.  Otherwise, the only choice you give the cop is to take you to jail for the purposes of posting a bail bond which assures your appearance.  If you don't post the bail bond, they will hold you up to 7 days in Texas.

              The only reason to go before a magistrate at this early stage is to determine whether or not probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest.  And as I said before, "probable cause" is just a rubber stamp.


              > In such cases, probable cause means whatever the cop says.

              Too bad you think that. It means you have no chance to disprove any
              lies.

              > It is a
              > rubber stamp. Then, you must either sign the ticket (ie., be released
              > on your own recognizance), or put up a bail bond.

              No, you never have to sign a promise to appear or pay bail. Doing one
              makes admissions and confessions and makes you liable for a misdemeanor
              later if you fail to appear, and the other grants jurisdiction.

              Again, see my comments above.  If you don't sign the ticket, you go to jail.  Now what do you do?


              Regards,

              FF

            • Frog Farmer
              ... You missed the news: the game is over, but before it was, I did like to be ahead of it. In California it is over. Here, you need a complainant who will
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 8, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Esenter wrote:

                > You are getting way ahead of the game. It is not difficult to
                > file a complaint.

                You missed the news: the game is over, but before it was, I did like to
                be ahead of it. In California it is over. Here, you need a complainant
                who will testify under penalty of perjury that a crime has been
                committed.

                You know, a house of cards can be in free fall and some of the floors
                still look intact.

                > But we are talking about warrantless arrests. When
                > a cop pulls you over for an alleged traffic offense, he has made a
                > warrantless arrest.

                I do not believe in "tractor beams" like on Star Trek. It's been many
                years since I've had to pull onto private property (not belonging to
                three or more owners like a strip mall) in order to deal with a real
                cop.

                > The only issue at this time is whether you are
                > going to jail or you will be released "on your own recognizance".

                Again, so sad that you see only that issue. A few of my issues are: who
                is he? Does he follow any law? Which law does he agree to follow?
                Does he recognize that he is already operating outside the law he
                proclaims to follow? Does he think it might be best to involve his
                paycheck authorizer or maybe before that, several of his peers to
                consult as witnesses, in order to minimize damages?

                If we are one-on-one with no witnesses, we need more witnesses before
                moving forward, or he can continue with committing further crimes if
                he's willing to do it at the point of his gun. I'll just make sure he
                knows I'm no threat to his personal safety. I'm recovering from triple
                skull fracture and a broken first lumbar vertebrae here! I can only
                stand for about 7 minutes because of sciatica. I'll even sit in the
                back of his car to discuss all my issues if he wants to. So far, none
                has wanted to. And I've never been taken to jail for demanding all of
                my rights at all times and never waiving any for any cause or reason,
                for if I was, and they admitted that, it would be an automatic win,
                absent overwhelming fraud and corruption (which becomes more likely each
                day, I'll grant you that).

                > By
                > signing the ticket, all you have done is agreed to appear. You have
                > waived no rights. You can always bring up any other issue at a later
                > time.

                Yes, people CAN bring up issues at later times if they need the
                experience and educational process of going through as many stages of a
                case as they physically can go through. For more experienced folks who
                don't need any of their time wasted, a more rapid conclusion is
                preferable.

                By signing the ticket, you've made the admission and confession that in
                your own mind the "cop" (that is not a legal term and means NOTHING
                legally, while "officer" is more useful to people of my ilk) has the
                power to do what he is doing to you. I hope you know that your mere
                next door neighbor cannot do the same as you are permitting here.

                So your signing tells witnesses that you admit to the "cop's" authority,
                jurisdiction and status. And it usually commits you to making a general
                appearance in court, and it usually waives the right to a formal
                verified complaint without fighting twice as hard to get one. And as I
                said, it's hard for them (and then you at arraignment) to get those.
                Most people waive a formal verified complaint. I think if I ever got
                that far again, the animating educational process would be worth some
                investment of time and attention.

                In Texas, things might be easier. They may have robo-signers for
                complaints the way JPMorgan has them for mortgage foreclosure
                affidavits. I don't now - I only know what is going on here in
                California. The law here needs real live authorized qualified people to
                do that. That's why the courts have stopped the foreclosures where
                perjury was part of the process. People actually seem to be waking up
                because now the systemic fraud can be identified in many settings
                otherwise thought to be independent of each other. This is why I like
                "the money issues" myself, because they can tie almost anything
                together.

                > > All the magistrate will do is
                > > determine whether or not probable cause existed for the
                > arrest.

                Won't he invite you into chambers for a soda or coffee, and a doughnut
                and discuss why you think you're the winner of the case? Or don't you
                invite yourself?

                It's fun to do and you can make friends at the same time.

                What if you disqualify the person before they can act officially, what
                then?

                At least you are aware that a probable cause hearing comes before bail
                setting! Most people don't give either of those a thought!

                > Is that so? What if I disqualify him first for not having his
                > oath or
                > bond in order? What if I make them go through the process
                > outlined in
                > the Penal Code where the "officer" has to "lay the complaint
                > before the
                > magistrate" and I haven't cooperated by making one for him to
                > use? His
                > shorthand form will fail as a complaint absent my consent and
                > cooperation, as you would give it.
                >
                >
                > Again, you waive no rights by signing a ticket. All you have
                > done is agreed to appear. Otherwise, the only choice you give the cop
                > is to take you to jail for the purposes of posting a bail bond which
                > assures your appearance. If you don't post the bail bond, they will
                > hold you up to 7 days in Texas.

                Wow! 7 days! Here, they just had to lower it by court order from 72
                hours to only 48 hours! I notice you ignored my questions. Did you
                miss seeing them, or just had no answers?

                Either way, to all our witnesses here, it is clear that there are
                possibilities that you have never explored.

                > The only reason to go before a magistrate at this early stage is
                > to determine whether or not probable cause existed for the warrantless
                > arrest. And as I said before, "probable cause" is just a rubber
                > stamp.

                I'm not fooled by rubber stamps. And that may be YOUR "only reason". I
                have more than one other reason, as some other list members may be able
                to tell already. Can you tell yet?

                As I said before:

                >> No, you never have to sign a promise to appear or pay bail.
                >> Doing one makes admissions and confessions and makes you
                >> liable for a misdemeanor later if you fail to appear, and
                >> the other grants jurisdiction.

                > Again, see my comments above. If you don't sign the ticket, you
                > go to jail. Now what do you do?

                Now I stop answering your questions as long as you ignore mine and I let
                you proceed on your way to getting arrested and making more work for
                yourself than is necessary.

                Freebie Tip for our witnesses:

                There is a legal difference between testimony and comments.

                Regards,

                FF
              • BOB GREGORY
                *Maybe Esenter thought those questions were rhetorical or maybe even the cursed Socratic Method of teaching! At any rate, FF stopped responding before he got
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 8, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maybe Esenter thought those questions were rhetorical or maybe even the cursed Socratic Method of teaching!

                  At any rate, FF stopped responding before he got to the part about being arrested and having the vehicle towed after refusal to sign the ticket.  Having a vehicle towed is an expensive proposition in most jurisdictions.  And it can also be a risky thing, since any valuables in the car could disappear and the car itself could suffer dents and dings or have the windows left open in the storage lot whether it's raining or not. It just makes no sense for uncooperative people to have their cars treated carefully.  If they are willing to Taser old ladies and cripples, what chance does a car have?

                  ===================


                  On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                   



                  Now I stop answering your questions as long as you ignore mine and I let
                  you proceed on your way to getting arrested and making more work for
                  yourself than is necessary.

                  Freebie Tip for our witnesses:

                  There is a legal difference between testimony and comments.

                  Regards,

                  FF

                  _

                • esenter
                  ... From: Frog Farmer To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 5:58 PM Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Demand that knowledge group
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 9, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                     

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 5:58 PM
                    Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Demand that knowledge group members teach us what we want to know...

                     


                    Esenter wrote:


                    > Again, see my comments above. If you don't sign the ticket, you
                    > go to jail. Now what do you do?

                    Now I stop answering your questions as long as you ignore mine and I let
                    you proceed on your way to getting arrested and making more work for
                    yourself than is necessary.

                    None of what you claim must be demanded at a traffic stop. 

                    Frog Farmer must be from a place like Mayberry where all the cops are clones of Sheriff Andy Taylor.  Where I come from, I might pass through over 30 different law enforcement jurisdictions just driving around for a couple of days.  Most of the cops around here are like Barney Fiffe on steroids.  If you don't sign the ticket, their policy is go to jail and get your car towed.  They wouldn't know nor care about your "procedures" or threats.

                    Why go to jail for no reason since all of your remedies can be applied without going to jail?
                  • thegant3
                    ... Testimony is a statement entered into evidence in a court case. Comments are statements that may or may not become evidence. Personally, I rarely give
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 9, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Freebie Tip for our witnesses:
                      >
                      > There is a legal difference between testimony and comments.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > FF
                      >

                      Testimony is a statement entered into evidence in a court case.

                      Comments are statements that may or may not become evidence.

                      Personally, I rarely give comments to law enforcement or other govt officials. There are so many laws on the books that you never know when you might unwittenly be confessing to a crime, or they twist your comments making you a criminal.
                    • Frog Farmer
                      BOB GREGORY after saying I gave all-caps some credence, as if he didn t, ... Yes, what stopped my continuation was the fact that what I said was ignored and
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 11, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        BOB GREGORY after saying I gave all-caps some credence, as if he didn't,
                        and using them for his own post, said:

                        > At any rate, FF stopped responding before he got to the part about
                        > being arrested and having the vehicle towed after refusal to sign the
                        > ticket.

                        Yes, what stopped my continuation was the fact that what I said was
                        ignored and not addressed as though it wasn't there, and my own
                        questions I need answered were unanswered or even acknowledged with the
                        promise of a future answer. What is good for the goose is good for the
                        gander, they say. If I act the way people treat me, how can they
                        complain legitimately that I don't answer questions or volunteer
                        information in a one-sided "exchange"? Does he think that because I
                        didn't expound further on just another of a myriad of possible steps
                        that could be taken, that I had no contingency? I can keep explaining,
                        and will if anyone has an intelligent question and will converse both
                        ways, answering questions from me that help to define the facts of the
                        situation all the list members are being asked to imagine. See, I have
                        to explain my next step for people who couldn't take my beginning steps
                        seriously. But the next step always is supported by prior steps taken.
                        Sometimes errors are so numerous and piled on each other that they
                        physically do not have enough time for proper remedy. Failing to do
                        certain things permits other things to occur. Can everyone grasp that
                        concept in a general way? Who can't?

                        > Having a vehicle towed is an expensive proposition in most
                        > jurisdictions.

                        Lots of good words to pick apart there, unless one wants to cooperate in
                        his own prosecution and make friends on the police force. Words like
                        "vehicle" (I had a four-day administrative hearing over that one!) and
                        "expensive" which ties in the money issues, and "jurisdictions".
                        Americans often exercise the right to waive jurisdiction issues.

                        > And it can also be a risky thing, since any valuables
                        > in the car could disappear

                        Does this mean that the tax-supported employees who were hired to
                        perform as fiduciaries fail in their duties and subject unconvicted
                        people to damages and property loss with no trial or due process?

                        I know that here, if other things are in order, any seizure is
                        contestable within three days via administrative hearing. If one wins
                        at that hearing, and in my case there is no reason I wouldn't, one's
                        property is released without any charge except to the taxpayers who
                        support the operation. How many people do you know who have actually
                        called for a seizure hearing within the three day limit? Then HOW they
                        conducted the hearing comes into play. Got any details of any
                        particular cases?

                        > and the car itself could suffer dents and
                        > dings or have the windows left open in the storage lot whether it's
                        > raining or not.

                        I'm sad to learn that criminal negligence is so endemic among people
                        hired to protect the public's property. How many people do you know
                        who, after winning their seizure hearing, complained of such damages and
                        put in a claim to be paid?

                        > It just makes no sense for uncooperative people to
                        > have their cars treated carefully.

                        Why is that? If the car reverts to the state later, doesn't such damage
                        reduce the monetary value during the time when governments everywhere
                        are technically bankrupt and crying poor-mouth? Is this an admission
                        that the inmates are running the asylum and that people in government
                        can be expected to be criminally negligent, maliciously destroying
                        property that they contracted to protect FOR the governments?

                        At least here, it's only for show and once they know you know, they only
                        try to force this stuff on "The Rubes".

                        > If they are willing to Taser old
                        > ladies and cripples, what chance does a car have?

                        There you go! Total anarchy, you imply. No law.

                        If we're there, Americans always had a remedy to that too.

                        It comes down to YOU. And me. What we do matters and we cannot wait
                        for agreement from poll results. I surely cannot wait for list members
                        to agree that what I do is right, but it feels right for me and has for
                        a long time. And people who pay for my time can have me explain the
                        obvious all day long without it irking me. It only irks me when people
                        who argue won't answer clarifying questions or address issues I raise
                        that they had apparently never considered, just like in an
                        administrative hearing or courtroom!

                        Regards,

                        FF
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... Show my writing where I claimed that ANYTHING must be demanded at a traffic stop . Or list a few of these things you say I CLAIMED MUST BE DEMANDED .
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 11, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Esenter wrote:

                          > None of what you claim must be demanded at a traffic stop.

                          Show my writing where I "claimed" that ANYTHING "must be demanded at a
                          traffic stop". Or list a few of these things you say I CLAIMED "MUST BE
                          DEMANDED". I hereby admit that NOTHING "must be demanded" at a "traffic
                          stop". Nobody here is qualified to receive a demand! I confess that
                          Americans are FREE to demand NOTHING of ANYONE EVER. All lawful
                          requirements for government actors may be waived by consent!

                          > Frog Farmer must be from a place like Mayberry where all the
                          > cops are clones of Sheriff Andy Taylor.

                          Wow! That's great! Give the list members something they can really
                          relate to! Talk about reality shows!

                          > Where I come from, I might
                          > pass through over 30 different law enforcement jurisdictions just
                          > driving around for a couple of days. Most of the cops around here are
                          > like Barney Fiffe on steroids.

                          Let me see if I understand his position... He says that I must be from a
                          place like Mayberry but where he is, he says that all the deputies are
                          like Barney Fife on steroids. And he implies that this isn't like
                          Mayberry? I'm not getting his message clearly...

                          I don't get a Mayberry feeling where I am, but I do get a "commie"
                          feeling.

                          > If you don't sign the ticket, their
                          > policy is go to jail and get your car towed. They wouldn't know nor
                          > care about your "procedures" or threats.

                          Except that they are not "my procedures" because they come right out of
                          the code books they say they follow themselves and they are not
                          "threats", they are promises.

                          You are not here, and I am not there. I feel sorry for you where you
                          are. It is worse than it is here. Anarchy is better than tyranny, if
                          you ask me.

                          > Why go to jail for no reason since all of your remedies can be
                          > applied without going to jail?

                          Exactly. They don't take me to jail, and they kick my friends out
                          without any signatures. My last problem was solved with a phone call.
                          It was an honest mistake on their part. They didn't know who they were
                          dealing with. When I told them that I wanted to know who was
                          responsible for the "problem" it was because I wanted to determine if it
                          was an honest mistake or intentional misfeasance and harassment.

                          They assured me it was an honest mistake and that it wouldn't happen
                          again, and I was lenient and understanding, although not approving of
                          any of it. I face the reality that I can only change things for myself.

                          Regards,

                          FF
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Here when they were revising the county s general plan (imposed from a Rockefeller front group) they had a series of meetings so the public could submit
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 11, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            thegant3 wrote:

                            > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > There is a legal difference between testimony and comments.

                            > Testimony is a statement entered into evidence in a court case.
                            >
                            > Comments are statements that may or may not become evidence.
                            >
                            > Personally, I rarely give comments to law enforcement or other govt
                            > officials. There are so many laws on the books that you never know
                            > when you might unwittenly be confessing to a crime, or they twist your
                            > comments making you a criminal.

                            Here when they were revising the county's general plan (imposed from a
                            Rockefeller front group) they had a series of meetings so the "public"
                            could submit "testimony and comments". This filled about ten very thick
                            three-ring binders. If Rocky's plan was to be thwarted, there had to be
                            SOME testimony against it from the public. Comments can be disregarded
                            and have no legal weight, like testimony. Sad things was, in all those
                            binders, the testimony section was empty and it was all comments which
                            ended up being ignored and Rocky won, Rubes lost.

                            Regards,

                            FF
                          • lawfulzone
                            ... To FF - don t know about CA, but I would tend to believe all 50 states are in the same harmonious path in their statutory language. In OH, the Supreme
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 11, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Is that so? What if I disqualify him first for not having his oath or
                              > bond in order? What if I make them go through the process outlined in
                              > the Penal Code where the "officer" has to "lay the complaint before the
                              > magistrate" and I haven't cooperated by making one for him to use? His
                              > shorthand form will fail as a complaint absent my consent and
                              > cooperation, as you would give it.

                              To FF - don't know about CA, but I would tend to believe all 50 states are in the same harmonious path in their statutory language.

                              In OH, the Supreme Court was granted the duty by the OH legislature to promulgate the practice and procedures which are known as the Traffic Rules.

                              Within the rules, the Supreme Court makes the traffic ticket the charging instrument and complaint in all traffic cases.

                              I know that it is not a TRUE complaint which is normally filed by an attorney, rather than a police officer, who represents a third party, but it's accepted practice straight from the OH Traffic Rules.

                              The OH Traffic Rules, are administrative in nature because they were created by the Supremes and perform a regulatory function for acts committed by licensed drivers.

                              The rules are black and white and clear as day. If you're licensed you are required to follow the rules and are bound within the rules.

                              If you're un-licensed you go to jail and your vehicle gets impounded among other things.

                              Since the legislature decided to regulate driving because its a matter of safety, there is no remedy to the situation created when driving; especially since all traffic violations are classified as strict liability offenses?
                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... Guess they aren t. I notice you use those two-letter designations for states. You know that those are not the proper abbreviations of the states, don t
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 12, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Lawfulzone wrote:

                                > To FF - don't know about CA, but I would tend to believe all 50 states
                                > are in the same harmonious path in their statutory language.

                                Guess they aren't. I notice you use those two-letter designations for
                                states. You know that those are not the proper abbreviations of the
                                states, don't you? They are federal areas.

                                > In OH, the Supreme Court was granted the duty by the OH legislature to
                                > promulgate the practice and procedures which are known as the Traffic
                                > Rules.
                                >
                                > Within the rules, the Supreme Court makes the traffic ticket the
                                > charging instrument and complaint in all traffic cases.
                                >
                                > I know that it is not a TRUE complaint which is normally filed by an
                                > attorney, rather than a police officer, who represents a third party,
                                > but it's accepted practice straight from the OH Traffic Rules.
                                >
                                > The OH Traffic Rules, are administrative in nature because they were
                                > created by the Supremes and perform a regulatory function for acts
                                > committed by licensed drivers.

                                Well, there you go. I did already state that my rights were different
                                than the rights of many others, in that if I were to get arrested, I
                                have the right to see a magistrate immediately, which means with no
                                delay, whereas others who waive rights in return for privileges may be
                                subjected to "necessary delay".

                                > The rules are black and white and clear as day. If you're licensed you
                                > are required to follow the rules and are bound within the rules.

                                I won the no-drivers-license case three times three different ways. All
                                of them used the state's own laws to prove I had the right. A judge
                                agreed and read a list of reasons to 23 cops one time.

                                Do you recognize that a constitution trumps a conflicting statute?

                                > If you're un-licensed you go to jail and your vehicle gets impounded
                                > among other things.

                                Here, that could happen depending upon how you act and react. It hasn't
                                happened to me. It does happen to others all the time. But there are
                                more like me here too. I'm not the only one, or the first.

                                > Since the legislature decided to regulate driving because its a matter
                                > of safety, there is no remedy to the situation created when driving;
                                > especially since all traffic violations are classified as strict
                                > liability offenses?

                                What's with the question mark there? Driving is a commercial activity.
                                Traffic is commercial. I don't drive; I travel, and I don't charge for
                                carrying anyone or anything.

                                And my car is my own with nobody else holding an equitable interest.
                                These things change my status from that of others with licenses and car
                                payments.

                                Regards,

                                FF
                              • Michael
                                ... This thread is giving me a headache. Yes, the use of CA designation, among others, tells a story in and of itself. ...tend to believe... apparently
                                Message 15 of 26 , Oct 12, 2010
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "lawfulzone" <fiore1031@...> wrote:

                                  > To FF - don't know about CA, but I would tend to
                                  > believe all 50 states are in the same harmonious
                                  > path in their statutory language.


                                  This thread is giving me a headache. Yes, the use
                                  of "CA" designation, among others, tells a story in
                                  and of itself. "...tend to believe..." apparently
                                  is easier than knowing the laws, and that erroneous
                                  substitution is what keeps those like "lawfulzone"
                                  in line with those who demand obedience.

                                  It makes me wonder what "lawfulzone" is supposed
                                  to imply, as a "handle."


                                  Here in Illinois, there is no harmony with the
                                  statutory language found in "CA." Reality is
                                  most always different from "beliefs."
                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... Here s something about belief : The thing believed needs to come from somebody else. If it comes only from one s own mind, and one didn t get it
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Oct 12, 2010
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Michael wrote:

                                    > This thread is giving me a headache. Yes, the use
                                    > of "CA" designation, among others, tells a story in
                                    > and of itself. "...tend to believe..." apparently
                                    > is easier than knowing the laws, and that erroneous
                                    > substitution is what keeps those like "lawfulzone"
                                    > in line with those who demand obedience.

                                    Here's something about "belief":

                                    The thing believed needs to come from somebody else. If it comes only
                                    from one's own mind, and one didn't get it elsewhere, it is not a
                                    "belief", since there is no one to believe, but it is a theory. When
                                    someone tells me they "believe" I always ask, "WHO are you believing,
                                    and why?"

                                    > It makes me wonder what "lawfulzone" is supposed
                                    > to imply, as a "handle."

                                    A believer?

                                    > Here in Illinois, there is no harmony with the
                                    > statutory language found in "CA." Reality is
                                    > most always different from "beliefs."

                                    And beliefs aren't always really beliefs, in that there was nobody being
                                    believed as much as a theory was being formulated by one who "believes"
                                    in his own cognitive abilities.

                                    Excrement is hitting rotating blades as we speak. The FRN is doomed.
                                    Gold and silver are exploding denominated in FRNs.

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juPz2bAp_ZQ&feature=player_embedded#!

                                    Regards,

                                    FF
                                  • lawfulzone
                                    ... states ... did the states become Fed Areas? When was the land of the 50 states ceded to the Feds? By what ACT? What year? ... to ... Traffic ... party, ...
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Oct 13, 2010
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Lawfulzone wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > To FF - don't know about CA, but I would tend to believe all 50 states
                                      > > are in the same harmonious path in their statutory language.
                                      >
                                      > Guess they aren't. 
                                      Your guess is as good as my belief.

                                      > I notice you use those two-letter designations for
                                      > states. You know that those are not the proper abbreviations of the
                                      > states, don't you? They are federal areas. 
                                      Really; Federal Areas! 
                                      How did the states become Fed Areas? 
                                      When was the land of the 50 states ceded to the Feds? 
                                      By what ACT? 
                                      What year?

                                      >
                                      > > In OH, the Supreme Court was granted the duty by the OH legislature to
                                      > > promulgate the practice and procedures which are known as the Traffic
                                      > > Rules.
                                      > >
                                      > > Within the rules, the Supreme Court makes the traffic ticket the
                                      > > charging instrument and complaint in all traffic cases.
                                      > >
                                      > > I know that it is not a TRUE complaint which is normally filed by an
                                      > > attorney, rather than a police officer, who represents a third party,
                                      > > but it's accepted practice straight from the OH Traffic Rules.
                                      > >
                                      > > The OH Traffic Rules, are administrative in nature because they were
                                      > > created by the Supremes and perform a regulatory function for acts
                                      > > committed by licensed drivers.
                                      >
                                      > Well, there you go. I did already state that my rights were different
                                      > than the rights of many others, in that if I were to get arrested, I
                                      > have the right to see a magistrate immediately, which means with no
                                      > delay, whereas others who waive rights in return for privileges may be
                                      > subjected to "necessary delay".

                                      The right to see a magistrate is available to everyone, you just choose to exercise it, but do tell,  WHY?

                                      >
                                      > > The rules are black and white and clear as day. If you're licensed you
                                      > > are required to follow the rules and are bound within the rules.
                                      >
                                      > I won the no-drivers-license case three times three different ways. All
                                      > of them used the state's own laws to prove I had the right. A judge
                                      > agreed and read a list of reasons to 23 cops one time.

                                      Would you care to share the case numbers and name of the City and Court and the year that these cases were won?

                                      >
                                      > Do you recognize that a constitution trumps a conflicting statute?
                                      And this is true because you say so or do you have evidence to provide that proves your statement is true?

                                      >
                                      > > If you're un-licensed you go to jail and your vehicle gets impounded
                                      > > among other things.
                                      >
                                      > Here, that could happen depending upon how you act and react. It hasn't
                                      > happened to me. It does happen to others all the time. But there are
                                      > more like me here too. I'm not the only one, or the first.
                                      >
                                      > > Since the legislature decided to regulate driving because its a matter
                                      > > of safety, there is no remedy to the situation created when driving;
                                      > > especially since all traffic violations are classified as strict
                                      > > liability offenses?
                                      >
                                      > What's with the question mark there?  
                                      Typing ERROR. 

                                      >Driving is a commercial activity. 
                                      Prove it? 
                                      The legislature can regulate any activity that effects the health, safety and welfare of the people.
                                      It's chosen to regulate driving an automobile. 
                                      So why can't the legislature regulate how a 3 thousand pound hunk of metal gets to move from here to there without effecting the health, safety and welfare of the people?

                                      > Traffic is commercial. I don't drive; I travel, and I don't charge for
                                      > carrying anyone or anything.

                                      Makes no difference whether you drive or travel, you're still moving a 3 thousand pound hunk of metal that requires you behave in a manner that is regulated for the health, safety and welfare of the people.

                                      >
                                      > And my car is my own with nobody else holding an equitable interest.
                                      Equitable interest has nothing to do with regulating how 3000 pounds of metal moves down the street!

                                      > These things change my status from that of others with licenses and car
                                      > payments.
                                      What things FF? 
                                      >
                                      > Regards,
                                      >
                                      > FF

                                    • lawfulzone
                                      ... RATHER then focus on the discussion and provide educational instructions to the list members, you chose to nit pick the reply and make personal demeaning
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Oct 13, 2010
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > > To FF - don't know about CA, but I would tend to
                                        > > believe all 50 states are in the same harmonious
                                        > > path in their statutory language.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > This thread is giving me a headache. Yes, the use
                                        > of "CA" designation, among others, tells a story in
                                        > and of itself. "...tend to believe..." apparently
                                        > is easier than knowing the laws, and that erroneous
                                        > substitution is what keeps those like "lawfulzone"
                                        > in line with those who demand obedience. 
                                        >
                                        > It makes me wonder what "lawfulzone" is supposed
                                        > to imply, as a "handle."
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Here in Illinois, there is no harmony with the
                                        > statutory language found in "CA." Reality is
                                        > most always different from "beliefs."
                                        >
                                        RATHER then focus on the discussion and provide educational instructions to the list members,  you chose to nit pick the reply and make personal demeaning remarks to what you believe I believe;
                                        "CA" designation, among others, tells a story
                                        what "lawfulzone" is supposed to imply, as a "handle."

                                        Why?

                                      • Frog Farmer
                                        ... It s nowhere near a belief! ... Those federal area designations that you use are not the states . There are two different things, states and federal areas
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Oct 14, 2010
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Lawfulzone wrote:

                                          > Your guess is as good as my belief.

                                          It's nowhere near a belief!

                                          > > I notice you use those two-letter designations for
                                          > > states. You know that those are not the proper abbreviations of the
                                          > > states, don't you? They are federal areas.
                                          > Really; Federal Areas!
                                          > How did the states become Fed Areas?

                                          Those federal area designations that you use are not "the states".
                                          There are two different things, states and federal areas and the two
                                          letter abbreviations are for the federal areas.

                                          > When was the land of the 50 states ceded to the Feds?
                                          > By what ACT?
                                          > What year?

                                          There are many instances where state lands were ceded to the feds but
                                          I'm not going to search all of them out for you. Each location had its
                                          own origins.

                                          > The right to see a magistrate is available to everyone, you just
                                          > choose to exercise it, but do tell, WHY?

                                          You chose to stop conversing and answer any of my questions so I stopped
                                          answering yours. But for the other list members who probably already
                                          know why, I'll tell it again: to disqualify any unqualified people in
                                          attendance, and to prove that the "officer" is impersonating and has no
                                          complaint to "lay before the magistrate". When that is a matter of
                                          record, there is no reason to hold me further.

                                          > Would you care to share the case numbers and name of the City and
                                          > Court and the year that these cases were won?

                                          No. There is no longer any record of them or thousands of other
                                          dismissed prosecutions.

                                          > > Do you recognize that a constitution trumps a conflicting statute?
                                          > And this is true because you say so or do you have evidence to provide
                                          > that proves your statement is true?

                                          That you need confirmation from me is ample proof of the reason I no
                                          longer need to take you seriously.

                                          > >Driving is a commercial activity.
                                          > Prove it?

                                          Was that another error?

                                          > It's chosen to regulate driving an automobile.

                                          But you don't know how they've done it here in California.

                                          > Makes no difference whether you drive or travel, you're still moving a
                                          > 3 thousand pound hunk of metal that requires you behave in a manner
                                          > that is regulated for the health, safety and welfare of the people.

                                          Where you are it might be that those words are used somehow, but not
                                          here. Here, it's clear for those who read the statutes, and a matter of
                                          myth and belief on the part of those who never read them.

                                          > Equitable interest has nothing to do with regulating how 3000 pounds
                                          > of metal moves down the street!

                                          That's right, but here the equitable interest in a vehicle is the topic
                                          covered by the law, and "3000 pounds of metal moving down the street" is
                                          not.

                                          > > These things change my status from that of others with licenses and
                                          > car payments.
                                          > What things FF?

                                          1. That I do not have a license

                                          2. That nobody else holds an equitable interest in my car

                                          Please don't bother the list with anything more directed to me because
                                          you are not answering questions you find uncomfortable, and you ignore
                                          corrections to your false beliefs, and I don't waste time once I know it
                                          is a waste.

                                          Regards,

                                          FF
                                        • stonekutteral
                                          OK Bear, I think you have let Frog Farmer make the point, about lawfulzone proving his/her own ignorance, and of course you can let them ignore the posting
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Oct 15, 2010
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            OK Bear, I think you have let Frog Farmer make the point, about lawfulzone proving his/her own ignorance, and of course you can let them ignore the posting rules on socratic questions etc…. but can we please move on now- lawfulzone has shown they do not read and or comprehend the law, not even the constitution for crying out loud, and is contributing nothing but low quality entertainment, and whether or not Frog Farmer lives in Mayberry or is an Amish farmer with 3000 pounds of metal in a horse drawn carriage -instead of spending time slinging mud -take what of his advice that  still works, do first things first, and YOU have to figure out and comprehend what your situation is and what to do and how to do every step in order, and if the cops, or the jailers, or the judges "make" you do something different, then you still take note of what happened and go to plan B and do the next thing….. if you don't have a plan B because you haven't been thinking or if you took someone's "advice" instead of learning and comprehending what to do yourself, then you are going to get squashed in a courtroom, just like if you try to go walking on a highway and you are not in "3000" pounds of metal. then you are going to get squashed  on the pavement, and all the kings horses and all the kings men are not going to put you back together again….. "they" say an old gravestone reads,   "Here lies poor old William Leigh, who died disputing the right of way. He was Right , dead Right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead , as if he were wrong!"    Fact is, Frog Framer and Bear are not going to be around to hold your hand when the spit hits the fan, and if you don't know the law  AS IT APPLIES TO YOU IN YOUR SITUATION , then you are going to be shark food if you are swimming with lawyers who are out to get you. The constitution itself is not much longer than this thread, and personally I think I will re- read it rather than more on this….doesn't a book say  somewhere in it " My people perish for want of knowledge!!"……. better study up or lay down in the gutter and give up, but I could have looked up about twenty state laws in the time it took me to write this…  better off doing that than writing, and you all could be studying too…!!! Survival of the fittest is in operation here,or something very like it, and when you get gobbled up by the bad monsters, and are nothing but a few scraps of meat hanging from their teeth,... whining that you didn't know, or didn't understand, won't make any difference… baby gazelles, slow gazelles, and lone cape buffalo all get eaten by lions….and if you are getting chased by lions are you actually going to stop and ask for directions, or head for the exit sign (read the laws)? cheers!!! !!!  Al 
                                            On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Frog Farmer wrote:

                                            > > Do you recognize that a constitution trumps a conflicting statute?
                                            > And this is true because you say so or do you have evidence to provide
                                            > that proves your statement is true?

                                            That you need confirmation from me is ample proof of the reason I no
                                            longer need to take you seriously.

                                            > >Driving is a commercial activity.
                                            > Prove it?

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