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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Swan update

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Oh, really? Why did you give them any name at all? ... Who was them ? Were they competent to understand what you meant? Probably not. ... I would never
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 27, 2003
      keystone law wrote:

      > I was arrested Xmas eve 98, for using my middle name and not my first.


      Oh, really? Why did you give them any name at all?

      > I
      > kept telling them I refused to participate in their fraud.


      Who was "them"? Were they competent to understand what you
      meant? Probably not.

      > Off to jail 50,000 bail.


      I would never pay bail at all (can't with no money), but I
      don't even appear to consider it without having a probable
      cause hearing to determine that a crime indeed has been
      committed, and then a bail setting hearing. Were these waived?

      > I was told to participate or my bail keeps getting higher.


      Like I said, they lie. Wouldn't it have been interesting to
      see how high they could go with it? Paying bail grants
      jurisdiction. And it usually gives your adversary more time
      to prepare the case against you.

      Maybe next time you'll exercise your right to remain silent.

      I know it's hard to do. I wonder what they'd do if you were
      to stick a piece of duct tape over your own mouth...

      Do they arrest those who cannot speak, for not speaking?

      Do you have less rights than a mute?

      I don't think I have to identify myself, and no one has yet
      shown me a law that says I have to do so.

      Do you have one applicable to me?
    • keystone law
      ... Oh, really? Why did you give them any name at all? this was in the beginning of my undrestanding of the fraud. ... Who was them ? Were they competent to
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 28, 2003
        > I was arrested Xmas eve 98, for using my middle name and not my
        first.


        Oh, really?  Why did you give them any name at all?
        this was in the beginning of my undrestanding of the fraud.

        > I
        > kept telling them I refused to participate in their
        fraud.


        Who was "them"?  Were they competent to understand what you
        meant?  Probably not.
         
        It was the Distric Justice and the cop

        > Off to jail 50,000 bail.


        I would never pay bail at all (can't with no money),
         
        I understand this issue now. but not then.
         
        but I don't even appear to consider it without having a probable
        cause hearing to determine that a crime indeed has been
        committed, and then a bail setting hearing.  Were these waived?
         
        no none were wavied. Here you are arrested and taken before a DJ. here he just sets the bail and you go where he wants to. I just went through it again the other week for fines i have no means to cause they keep thoughing me in jail and i keep losing work. 

        > I was told to participate or my bail keeps getting higher.


        Like I said, they lie.  Wouldn't it have been interesting to
        see how high they could go with it?
         
        He set it at 50000 I kept refusing to play in there sand box. till they put a fence around me.
         
        Paying bail grants
        jurisdiction.  And it usually gives your adversary more time
        to prepare the case against you.

        Maybe next time you'll exercise your right to remain silent.
         
        Here inPA they throw you in jail for obstructing justice.


        I know it's hard to do.  I wonder what they'd do if you were
        to stick a piece of duct tape over your own mouth...

        Do they arrest those who cannot speak, for not speaking?

        Do you have less rights than a mute?

        I don't think I have to identify myself, and no one has yet
        shown me a law that says I have to do so.

        Do you have one applicable to me?
         
        No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be great.







        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Frog Farmer
        ... The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system,
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 28, 2003
          keystone law wrote:

          >
          >
          > No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be great.

          "The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a
          long and expansive historical development, is the essential
          mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the
          individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to
          speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a
          period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 437] as well as
          in the courts or during the course of other official
          investigations." Pp. 458-465.

          Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
        • Bliss Alexandra
          Here s another: There are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, the most important of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 29, 2003

            Here's another:

            "There are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, the most important of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.  The privilege can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonable believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidene that might be so used.  This Court has been zealous to safe-guard the values that underlie the privilege."  Kastigar v. United States, 406 US 441, 216-217 (1972)

             
            However, I'm not sure if the Supremes have an exception to this for a traffic stop.
            Assume the traveler is in a private automobile without the corp. state's paperwork so as not to fall under code requirements.  Also any stuff out of the Patriot Act don't know about.



            -----Original Message-----
            From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
            Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:45 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Swan update


            keystone law wrote:


            >
            > No but if you have cases that I need
            not say anything it would be great.

            "The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a
            long and expansive historical development, is the essential
            mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the
            individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to
            speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a
            period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 437] as well as
            in the courts or during the course of other official
            investigations." Pp. 458-465.

            Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436





            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
            Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/aQSolB/TM
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

          • keystone law
            ok now here in PA we remain silent. We are arrested and tossed. Our rights are violated. Now what. Where does one go from there. ... From: Frog Farmer To:
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 29, 2003
              ok  now here in PA we remain silent. We are arrested and tossed. Our rights are violated. Now what. Where does one go from there.
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:45 PM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Swan update

              keystone law wrote:


              >
              > No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be great.

              "The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a
              long and expansive historical development, is the essential
              mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the
              individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to
              speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a
              period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 437] as well as
              in the courts or during the course of other official
              investigations." Pp. 458-465.

              Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436






              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Laurie Gardner
              Most interesting point was that paying bail gives them jurisdiction.... I LOVE YOU! ... peace, without prejudice, Laurie Gardner It is the duty of the patriot
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 30, 2003
                Most interesting point was that paying bail gives them jurisdiction....
                I LOVE YOU!
                At 12:55 PM 6/28/03, you wrote:
                > > I was arrested Xmas eve 98, for using my middle name and not my first.
                >
                >
                >Oh, really? Why did you give them any name at all?
                >this was in the beginning of my undrestanding of the fraud.
                >
                > > I
                > > kept telling them I refused to participate in their fraud.
                >
                >
                >Who was "them"? Were they competent to understand what you
                >meant? Probably not.
                >
                >It was the Distric Justice and the cop
                >
                > > Off to jail 50,000 bail.
                >
                >
                >I would never pay bail at all (can't with no money),
                >
                >I understand this issue now. but not then.
                >
                >but I don't even appear to consider it without having a probable
                >cause hearing to determine that a crime indeed has been
                >committed, and then a bail setting hearing. Were these waived?
                >
                >no none were wavied. Here you are arrested and taken before a DJ. here he
                >just sets the bail and you go where he wants to. I just went through it
                >again the other week for fines i have no means to cause they keep
                >thoughing me in jail and i keep losing work.
                >
                > > I was told to participate or my bail keeps getting higher.
                >
                >
                >Like I said, they lie. Wouldn't it have been interesting to
                >see how high they could go with it?
                >
                >He set it at 50000 I kept refusing to play in there sand box. till they
                >put a fence around me.
                >
                >Paying bail grants
                >jurisdiction. And it usually gives your adversary more time
                >to prepare the case against you.
                >
                >Maybe next time you'll exercise your right to remain silent.
                >
                >Here inPA they throw you in jail for obstructing justice.
                >
                >
                >I know it's hard to do. I wonder what they'd do if you were
                >to stick a piece of duct tape over your own mouth...
                >
                >Do they arrest those who cannot speak, for not speaking?
                >
                >Do you have less rights than a mute?
                >
                >I don't think I have to identify myself, and no one has yet
                >shown me a law that says I have to do so.
                >
                >Do you have one applicable to me?
                >
                >No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be great.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >ADVERTISEMENT
                ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3313099.4604523.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059354:HM/A=1595055/R=0/SIG=1240u9le2/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3313099&yhad=1595055>41a0e407.jpg
                >41a0e5d3.jpg
                >
                >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                peace,
                without prejudice,
                Laurie Gardner

                "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its
                government."~Thomas Paine
                "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary
                act." ~George Orwell


                This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
                and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
                intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
                distribution, or use of the information
                contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
                If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the
                sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or
                hard copy format. Thank you.
              • Frog Farmer
                ... Thanks - I need all the love I can get! People pay bail for convenience and expedience (they think). That, and money - they don t want to miss working for
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 30, 2003
                  Laurie Gardner wrote:

                  > Most interesting point was that paying bail gives them jurisdiction....
                  > I LOVE YOU!

                  Thanks - I need all the love I can get!

                  People pay bail for convenience and expedience (they think).
                  That, and money - they don't want to miss working for FRNs.

                  So instead of doing the right thing, they do the easy thing.

                  If someone REALLY believed that a court had no jurisdiction
                  (they'd have to know HOW a court gets jurisdiction, wouldn't
                  they?) would they agree to the amount of bail set at their
                  bail setting hearing? What?! There WAS no bail setting
                  hearing? And WHOSE fault is THAT? And how can you have a
                  realistic bail setting before probable cause has been
                  determined? This can all be ignored in the rush to get out
                  on bail and grant jurisdiction.

                  Or, you can be "difficult" and refuse to waive any right for
                  any cause or reason.

                  Each to his own.
                • Frog Farmer
                  Are you aware that PA is not the state called Pennsylvania? PA is an imaginary federal zone, or don t you care? I don t know the procedures for
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 8, 2003
                    Are you aware that "PA" is not the state called
                    Pennsylvania? PA is an imaginary federal zone, or don't you
                    care?

                    I don't know the procedures for Pennsylvania. Do you know
                    the names of the people who arrested and tossed you? Were
                    they lawfully qualified to do so? How many rights did you
                    waive between the time you were arrested and the time you
                    were released (assuming you're not writing from jail right
                    now)? Do you realize that to fail to object timely can be
                    interpreted as a waiver of a right? And why do you say,
                    "we"? I'm sure you cannot know what happens in every case
                    in Pennsylvania. Maybe you were speaking of just you and
                    your friends...maybe you were arrested on probable cause for
                    some crime that could be described differently than
                    "remaining silent" (which is not a crime). If you were
                    arrested for breathing air, where would you go from there?

                    I would probably demand a probable cause hearing (to get
                    even more names) and a bail setting hearing, so I could turn
                    down bail. What did you actually do? I would demand a
                    proper arraignment, which I have not seen done in California
                    in over 20 years.

                    keystone law wrote:

                    > ok now here in PA we remain silent. We are arrested and tossed. Our
                    > rights are violated. Now what. Where does one go from there.
                    >
                    > keystone law wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be
                    > great.
                    >
                    > "The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a
                    > long and expansive historical development, is the essential
                    > mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the
                    > individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to
                    > speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a
                    > period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 437] as well as
                    > in the courts or during the course of other official
                    > investigations." Pp. 458-465.
                    >
                    > Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.