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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution: a judge who gets it :-)

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Here s a problem as I see it, just my opinion... People who complain about their relationship to the minions do not take the constitution(s) seriously.
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 22, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Legalbear noticed:

      >...and, therefore, all their acts must
      > be conformable to it, or else they will be void [Pretty sure there are
      > a lot of void IRS acts out there.]. The Constitution is the work or
      > will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and
      > unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in
      > their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the
      > Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits
      > to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit
      > within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is
      > the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative,
      > Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case
      > in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act
      > of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is absolutely void.
      > Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 308 (1795). The whole case is here:
      > http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17377606670094711725&q=%22
      > mode+of+religious+worship%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60

      Here's a problem as I see it, just my opinion... People who complain
      about their relationship to the minions do not take the constitution(s)
      seriously. If they did, they'd ACT LIKE IT! They would conduct their
      own court whenever and wherever necessary. (Hint: IMOC) But local
      mercenary occupiers impersonating officers in the vacant offices can get
      the average sheeple to waive rights upon request within minutes and make
      countless admissions and confessions (some of which are false and if
      made under penalty of perjury could cause further discomforts to the
      unwary). Some say this is because of a martial law condition. I have
      my own answer to General Order 100. But dismissing martial law for a
      moment, the submissive, ignorant, uncaring individual may suffer for a
      lack of assertiveness in defending his rights "sua sponte".

      Regards,

      FF
    • Michael
      There is no other information that could be construed as promoting someone else s web site. This link is a concise explantion of General Orders 100, for those
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 22, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        There is no other information that could be construed
        as promoting someone else's web site. This link is a
        concise explantion of General Orders 100, for those
        not familiar with everyone being under martial law
        since the days of Lincoln, and a subsidairy explantion
        as to why there is fringe [military] around the flag,
        with the exception of the flags at the State Dept.

        http://republicassembly.com/book/export/html/24
      • Legalbear
        Yet, the reality is life in the corporate FEDERAL and STATE governments goes on, mostly unimpeded by such things as sovereignty, the organic constitution and
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          Yet, the reality is life in the corporate FEDERAL and
          STATE governments goes on, mostly unimpeded by such things
          as sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state
          guarantee of a Republican form of government.

           

          I don’t like the hopeless feeling of this post. If Edison had taken this approach on the light bulb there would not be one. This post has the same tenor to it that the Declaration of Independence had, “He has made the judges subject to his will alone.” The founders were up against this same type of issue: England was acting in a tyrannical way and they wanted out! If there is no hope, let us just give them our rights and go crawl in a hole. If it is true it is a corporation, and the Constitutions do not apply and the law form and government structure has changed, why not force them to admit it as we take back our rights from a different angle? If rights came from the Creator, a change in the form of government to a corporation could not take them away. I am pretty sure a corporate form of government is old news. I think a constitution is not much different than a corporate charter. Wikipidea says this about corporate charter, “The Articles of Incorporation (sometimes also referred to as the Certificate of Incorporation or the Corporate Charter) are the primary rules governing the management of a corporation in the United States and Canada, and are filed with a state or other regulatory agency.” Wikipidea says about constitutions:

           

          “A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.

           

          “Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as fundamental rights.”

           

          The beaches at Normandy were fortified in the cliffs; the allies attacked it nonetheless. If Frog Farmer has successfully intimidated them into leaving him alone, we should all be able to obtain to the same thing.

           

          At this link, it is described how Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted from office because they voted on a case in favor of gay marriages. I just learned that impeachment papers were filed against the remainder.

           

          The Teaparty just got a bunch of people in Congress.

           

          Locally, two judges were ousted because of their role as prosecutors in a wrongful conviction.

           

          I’m pretty sure Colorado has rulings amounting to, “As private corporations, courts have the stated corporate objective to maximize revenue for the shareholders.” but I know of a Colorado ruling saying that commercial principles did not apply to plea agreements in a criminal case where Constitutional rights were involved.

           

          You should see them [government officials] apply the Constitution when they are trying to invalidate legislation that limits their power or jeopardizes their position.

           

          In support of my position that there is hope, I bring to your attention the recent 2010 Supreme Court decision I posted here where the Supreme Court held the 2nd Amendment applied to the states. What about the 2008 Rothgery decision holding the states to a stiff application of when the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment attached. Also, what about the recent Lopez decision that reined in federal jurisdiction in the states?

           

          Let us look at fiscal conservatives refusing to raise the debt ceiling in Congress. Obama’s approval ratings are going lower and lower.

           

          Colorado just amended its Constitution to include an independent ethics commission as a watchdog over officials as, not corporate officers, but, as administrators of the public trust, saying that they are to, “avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated;…”

           

          I hold these out as proof that headway is being made and as an offer of hope that we can also make headway personally. I have a lot of stories in my own life where knowledge of law has benefitted me personally. Certainly I have enough stories to make my time spent studying law worth my while.

           

          My most recent experience in court shows that some of our problem stems from judges just being ignorant as what our rights are.



          Call me at: 720-675-7230

          On Skype: legalbear

          Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

          Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

          tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

          My blog: legalbearsblog.com

          Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

          (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)





        • Frog Farmer
          ... Reality knows that life and corporations do not co-exist. Sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state guarantee of a Republican form of government
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 23, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Michael wrote:

            > Yet, the reality is life in the corporate FEDERAL and
            > STATE governments goes on, mostly unimpeded by such things
            > as sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state
            > guarantee of a Republican form of government.

            Reality knows that life and corporations do not co-exist. Sovereignty,
            the organic constitution and the state guarantee of a Republican form of
            government are not in the same paradigm as corporate pretensions.

            > FF says the "game is over." I disagree. The "game" is
            > alive and well.

            I say the fans cannot be persuaded to leave the field, but the game is
            over because none of the rules are being enforced, the score is faked,
            and all one can see are snips of what looks like the old game that is
            over, but there is no cohesiveness from beginning to end as in a real
            game.

            > The ability of the FEDERAL government
            > to ride roughshod over its 14th Amendment citizenry
            > remains rampant.

            The 14th is void. If one says it is not, it is not for them. It's
            another example of the fans not wanting to quit the fake game.

            > While it may be destroying its present
            > form from within, via fiat, what will emerge is likely
            > a worse, ever more controlling faction designed by the
            > moneychangers, those who have been directing events
            > since the takeoever-of-one-government-at-a-time by the
            > G-dfather of the NWO mafia, Rothschild.

            We can all be money-changers. As Max Keiser points out, we all have the
            opportunity to reject paper and demand silver coin, the lawful money the
            constitution recognizes. To the extent the American people refuse to
            demand it, they deserve to be without it if you ask me.

            > Note the date of the case above...1795. Courts routinely
            > dismiss "sovereignty" or "rights vs privileges" arguments
            > all of the time.

            One reason for that is the Ashwander Rules, that make obvious hypocrisy
            on the pert of the moving parties a reason to dispense with the entire
            case. Show me a rights v. privileges argument that was dismissed and
            I'll show you a person who had a privilege and didn't realize it wasn't
            a right. Do you really think anyone who uses a Social Security number
            has rights instead of privileges? Do you think they are forced to do
            so? Why am I not forced to do things others claim they are forced to
            do?

            > Few know how to fight the system, and
            > while it can seem heartening to know there exists an
            > entirety of case laws that are supportive of the Republic,
            > in this regard I would say that the game is over.

            Pretty much as not enough players exist for that old game, although we
            all have the right to play our own home games (the republic). Few care
            to ever claim a republican form of government as early as the IMOC or as
            late as their allocution.

            > It is not that I have given up, by individual example,
            > for I recently argued that the use of copyrighted
            > statutes from the Bar Association are not to be relied
            > upon, but instead, the laws passed by the Illinois
            > legislatures and published by them, and that it is the
            > latter by which the courts must rule.
            >
            > Judges ignore arguments like this, and appellate courts
            > back them up.

            This is one reason I don't like to let them get that far. The easiest
            place to stop them is at the beginning. The more momentum they build,
            the harder they are to stop.

            > As private corporations, courts have the
            > stated corporate objective to maximize revenue for the
            > shareholders. You all know the drill from there.
            >
            > With the "sovereigns," just as it is with the de facto
            > courts, it is always about results. In citing cases that
            > state what is supposed to be for a Republican form of
            > government, the truth is, that ain't the situation for
            > what is probably 99% of the "citizens,"

            ...those 99% who will waive rights and make admissions and confessions
            when interrogated and sign when told to do so, and otherwise bow and
            scrape for their masters. Most lemmings go over the cliffs into the
            sea, but a few survive to propagate the race...

            > and results
            > for those who fight the system are not unified nor
            > sufficient in number to sustain a succssful stance
            > against the status quo.

            Speak for yourself, because my status quo is just how I like it! nobody
            is interested in unifying with me in any endeavor! No numbers are
            necessary for me to enjoy my rights and freedoms and to sustain my own
            successful stance against the status quo because the status quo is an
            illusion! Where does one perceive it? On CBS and CNN? Hahahaha! It's
            so deep out there we all need shovels!

            > The large numbers of people needed to resist are being
            > anesthstized by government handouts and the safety nets
            > of privileges and "benefits." Cognitive dissonance
            > remains supreme.

            Meanwhile the Silver Liberation Army is fighting back and doing what
            must be done without waiting for the masses to approve and copycat.
            Crash the banksters & buy physical silver. That's how to resist!

            > The rest, [the few], have figured out a way to stay away.
            > I am not one of them, try as I might. [I have succeeded
            > in having the IRS dismissed from my life, through direct
            > confrontation and unanswered challenges.]

            Well there you go! Direct confrontation and unanswered challenges are
            what it is all about, isn't it? You can do it; I can do it; why cannot
            99% do it?? Weak minds surrender early.

            > As an aside, I cannot help thinking that the slaughter
            > of the Russian Imperial family of Tsar Nicholas II was
            > a much earlier version of the then-developing-NWO as
            > an example of letting nothing, and no one stand in the
            > way of gaining financial power of the world.
            >
            > Dissenting comments always welcome...

            You can step aside from the fray. You can decide not to support your
            enemies. You can pick your battles and stay off the front lines.

            Regards,

            FF
          • Michael
            ... Parsing the word life to a restricted definition does nothing to change the idiomatic use of the word. life, as it were, is alive and well for both the
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 23, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

              > Reality knows that life and corporations do not
              > co-exist.

              Parsing the word "life" to a restricted definition
              does nothing to change the idiomatic use of the word.
              "life," as it were, is alive and well for both the
              FEDERAL and STATE governments. The courts, the
              jails, and the ever-expanding "lifeform" of the
              FEDERAL de factos confirms this.

              > Sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state
              > guarantee of a Republican form of government are not
              > in the same paradigm as corporate pretensions.

              Never said they were. They are mutually exlusive, and
              FEDERAL and STATE makes sure it stays that way.


              > I say the fans cannot be persuaded to leave the field,
              > but the game is over because none of the rules are being
              > enforced, the score is faked, and all one can see are
              > snips of what looks like the old game that is
              > over, but there is no cohesiveness from beginning to end
              > as in a real game.

              I said the other game is alive and well. You say the
              old game is over. A point made without a distinction.
              Potato, potahto.



              > The 14th is void. If one says it is not, it is not
              > for them. It's another example of the fans not wanting
              > to quit the fake game.

              The number for whom the 14th is void is miniscule. Wasn't
              it Benson who spent so much time and money "trying" to
              prove the 16th was void? To use a previous expression,
              for the FEDERALs, the 14th is very alive and well.
              Saying otherwise does not make it so, in the non-FF world.

              > We can all be money-changers.

              Oh, FF...who is the "We" from which you so frequently
              exclude yourself. But using "We," the numbers who may
              fit into that specific category is said to be around
              3%, and some of them are merely trying to make the right choice, rather than using that choice as
              an expression of a sovereign exercise. However, that
              is merely an opinion that I could not back up.


              > Show me a rights v. privileges argument that was
              > dismissed and I'll show you a person who had a
              > privilege and didn't realize it wasn't a right.
              > Do you really think anyone who uses a Social Security
              > number has rights instead of privileges? Do you think
              > they are forced to do so?

              > Why am I not forced to do things others claim they are
              > forced to do?

              From the collective back to your standard singular "I."
              Do not really see much difference in what I have been
              saying and your editorials that followed, as the next
              comment demonstrates:


              > Few care to ever claim a republican form of government
              > as early as the IMOC or as late as their allocution.

              Were it could be that the IMOC had the same effect
              outside the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Alas, there are
              more STATES for which that has no effect, and I can
              assert that at was useless on three attempts by me.
              However, it did work once when I challenged a
              suburban district attorney to prove he had taken
              the proper oath of office, and my traffic case was:
              "Oh, that case has been dismissed." said the "judge."

              > The more momentum they build, the harder they are to stop.

              Said momentum has been building since the day of sine die.
              It has reached tsunami proportions.

              > Most lemmings go over the cliffs into the
              > sea, but a few survive to propagate the race...

              Darwinism says, it is not the strongest, nor the
              smartest that survive, but those who are best able
              to adapt to change.

              > Speak for yourself, because my status quo is just
              > how I like it!

              A reversion back to the singular, and back to your
              "old form." I frankly fail to see much dissent in
              what has been expressed, albeit in a slightly
              different manner.

              > Meanwhile the Silver Liberation Army is fighting
              > back and doing what must be done without waiting
              > for the masses to approve and copycat. Crash the
              > banksters & buy physical silver. That's how to resist!

              Silver Liberation Army? A bit overstated. If the
              masses are not participating, how big an "army" can
              it be. While the number of silver Eagles sold has been
              unprecedented over the past several months, the 3%
              figure used, and I may have gotten that from another
              highly read cite, which I will not mention, for Bear's
              sake, in the larger scheme, that ain't what will crash the "banksters."

              More likely, it is China and India, countries, that
              are buying huge quantities of silver, [and gold], It
              is the University of Texas taking delivery of $1 billion
              in physical gold that is making a difference. Silver
              Eagles are a drop in the proverbial "bankster" bucket.

              I do know several people who have been buying silver
              and gold for some time. Not one of them thinks in
              terms of defeating the "banksters" or "registering"
              their "vote" against the de facto government, and they
              do not even know there IS a de facto government.
              One cannot mix potahtos with tomahtos.


              FF is avidly read by most, if not all, on this board,
              and much of what he contributes has been very beneficial
              in learning how to defend oneself in the "land of
              make believe" that is a reality for...pick any number
              anyone wants...I say 99%, maybe it is 98%, or 97%, who
              have the will and the capability to fight the fight
              against the corporate FEDERAL and STATE "reality."

              While Bear may have found the tone of my comments
              "hopeless," I admit there is such an air in them,
              but it is based upon my personal experiences, and
              that is the point of posting what I did. I doubt
              I am unique in that sentiment.

              FF leans heavily on his IMOC, but for the vast
              majority, it does not apply, for whatever reason[s},
              and no matter how ardently he brings it up.

              In an ideal world, the stark reality of an informed
              FF-type response to what is, along with the many
              on-point case cites Bear takes the time to research
              and so willingly contributes here, would be picked up
              as a gauntlet and used against the faux-powers that be.
              In the real world, that is not the case.

              It is not out of hopeless that I began a challenge
              to the COOK COUNTY TREASURER to prove her defective
              oath of office has not left the office vacant, while
              at the same time, demanding to know exactly what it
              is that is being demanded of me to "pay" said property
              taxes.

              I will say that in the initial response, it did NOT
              come from the person challenged, rather it was an
              unsigned letter stating that the Treasurer did not
              have jurisdiction over certain determinations, none
              of which addressed my challenge[s]. Notice and Demand
              letter three was sent out a few weeks ago.

              The fight, in one form or another, continues...


              Cheers, all...
            • stonekutteral
              I often see people here and elsewhere confusing De Facto and De Jure …. What we are dealing with are De Jure entities…. they exist for the day because
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 23, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I often see people here and elsewhere confusing "De Facto" and "De Jure"…. What we are dealing with are De Jure entities…. they exist for the day because that is what they are pretending to be… while De Facto means exactly that, they are who they say they are in fact….. if you call it a De Facto government then you are saying it is really truly legitimate, I think what you mean is De Jure government…. also, there is a difference between "Cite" , "Site", and "Sight"…….

                Moderator/Bear: I'm not sure Al has this correct. Wikipedia here:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defacto says this about de facto:

                "De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact." In law, it means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact."

                Wikipedia goes on with respect to de facto governments:

                "A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.[6]

                "In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently, the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by the fact that it had deposed a previous leader or undermined the rule of a current one. De facto leaders sometimes do not hold a constitutional office and may exercise power informally."

                Al is absolutely correct on the three sites. I must have missed a typo. Bear

                On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Michael wrote:


                -, and the ever-expanding "lifeform" of the
                FEDERAL de factos confirms this.

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                > Sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state
                > guarantee of a Republican form of government are not
                >nd gold for some time. Not one of them thinks in
                terms of defeating the "banksters" or "registering"
                their "vote" against the de facto government, and they
                do not even know there IS a de facto government.
                One cannot mix potahtos with tomahtos.
              • hobot
                ... The Untied States and its subjects are under Military Rule, a milder gentler machine gun hand. Everything since Lincoln s War is under executive branch or
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 23, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Here's a problem as I see it, just my opinion... People who complain
                  > about their relationship to the minions do not take the constitution(s)
                  > seriously. If they did, they'd ACT LIKE IT! They would conduct their
                  > own court whenever and wherever necessary. (Hint: IMOC) But local
                  > mercenary occupiers impersonating officers in the vacant offices can get
                  > the average sheeple to waive rights upon request within minutes and make
                  > countless admissions and confessions (some of which are false and if
                  > made under penalty of perjury could cause further discomforts to the
                  > unwary). Some say this is because of a martial law condition. I have
                  > my own answer to General Order 100. But dismissing martial law for a
                  > moment, the submissive, ignorant, uncaring individual may suffer for a
                  > lack of assertiveness in defending his rights "sua sponte".
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > FF
                  >
                  The Untied States and its subjects are under Military Rule, a milder
                  gentler machine gun hand. Everything since Lincoln's War is under
                  executive branch or funded by Sec. of Treasury like Judicial branch.
                  Essentially everything we confront was passed under an Emergency
                  rule so side steps peace time reading of Bill and public discussion.
                  Amended 1933 1917 Act made everyone using Fed notes in United
                  States jurisdiction is an assumed enemy to be control by the hired
                  actors on the streets and in courts. The last section of 14 red amendment
                  removed any and all recognition of white state Nationals N or S, so
                  they couldn't hold public officer or use courts for remedy. If you can
                  defuse color of law actors at IMOC, then wonderful and way it should
                  work, but its more the force of personality and who you are talking to as to how well that may work and might have to use it in cycles on next wave of new administrators and enforcers. The once dejure legislatures Federal to State hit dead in at start of War of the States or bayonet pressed to vote as told or get out now.

                  All deep study of above leads back to Rothschild clan and trust/foundation
                  structures in < Tale of 3 City States >> youtube if Bear nixes foreign URL.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGhl7ysL_1U

                  hobot
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... There s a difference between du jour - as prepared on the particular day; of the kind being served ... and de jure - existing in law, or having
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 26, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > "A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of
                    > sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had
                    > been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power
                    > above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their
                    > stead.[6]
                    >
                    > "In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has
                    > assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or
                    > legitimate means; very frequently, the term is reserved for those
                    > whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful,
                    > unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by the fact
                    > that it had deposed a previous leader or undermined the rule of a
                    > current one. De facto leaders sometimes do not hold a constitutional
                    > office and may exercise power informally."

                    There's a difference between "du jour" - as prepared on the particular
                    day; of the kind being served ... and "de jure" - existing in law, or
                    having formal, legitimate, moral, or rightful effect, force, or
                    possession.

                    > Al is absolutely correct on the three sites. I must have missed a
                    > typo. Bear

                    Either that or made another one right there with "sites"...sure you
                    didn't mean "cites"? Or did Al list three websites? If he posted .jpg
                    or .gif files, it might have been "sights".

                    So I axe (ax??) du spellings madder? They shore doo.

                    Court tip: If you misspell a word in your court paper, your opposition
                    is not obligated to give that space any more consideration that a fly
                    speck on the paper. The word you thought you put into the record is not
                    there like you think it is. Nobody has jurisdiction to interpret what
                    you said and pick the most logical meaning from a variety of
                    possibilities. Either you said it or you didn't and if you misspelled
                    it, you didn't say it. You tried and failed and the other side wins
                    that issue. Also, failure to form complete and properly arranged
                    sentences can also render ideas useless and of no effect. In a real
                    case, it might be worth it to run papers past an 8th grade English
                    teacher for correcting before filing if there are any doubts.

                    Regards,

                    FF

                    P.S. When I cared enough to instruct what I thought were Public
                    Servants at the time, I carried with me an 8th grade English grammar
                    book. I used it primarily to instruct them on the meaning of the word
                    "statement", which they had to make against me to start a case against
                    me but few were capable of it without collusion!
                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... In my way of thinking, corporate entities by definition cannot exist outside their charters, although the human officers may do anything and claim they do
                    Message 9 of 13 , May 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael, with whom I usually agree, wrote:

                      > --- "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Reality knows that life and corporations do not
                      > > co-exist.
                      >
                      > Parsing the word "life" to a restricted definition
                      > does nothing to change the idiomatic use of the word.
                      > "life," as it were, is alive and well for both the
                      > FEDERAL and STATE governments. The courts, the
                      > jails, and the ever-expanding "lifeform" of the
                      > FEDERAL de factos confirms this.

                      In my way of thinking, corporate entities by definition cannot exist
                      outside their charters, although the human officers may do anything and
                      claim they do it for the corporation, their claims are meaningless to
                      me.

                      If an action taken by a fiduciary is not authorized, I don't have to
                      ratify it, but I may if I choose to do so. I think that one of the main
                      problems we face is that people ratify unauthorized actions by errant
                      fiduciaries but more often they approve of "de facto" portrayals of
                      fiduciaries by mere impersonators.

                      > > Sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state
                      > > guarantee of a Republican form of government are not
                      > > in the same paradigm as corporate pretensions.
                      >
                      > Never said they were. They are mutually exlusive, and
                      > FEDERAL and STATE makes sure it stays that way.

                      One deals with living, breathing entities, and one can only deal with
                      pretensions. None of us can be mandated to pretend without our consent.
                      We may all insist on "de jure" and reject "de facto" if they do not
                      match, unless we agree not to do so in a contract.

                      > > I say the fans cannot be persuaded to leave the field,
                      > > but the game is over because none of the rules are being
                      > > enforced, the score is faked, and all one can see are
                      > > snips of what looks like the old game that is
                      > > over, but there is no cohesiveness from beginning to end
                      > > as in a real game.
                      >
                      > I said the other game is alive and well. You say the
                      > old game is over. A point made without a distinction.
                      > Potato, potahto.

                      The game that I've been saying is over for years is the one that relies
                      upon the use of the word "dollar". Every time my usurping impersonating
                      neighbors come against me for some reason, they always involve the use
                      of that word! But they are never using it properly! So I don't play
                      with them and they get saddened by my reaction to their administrative
                      attempts.

                      Those who wish to permit misuse of the word "dollar" still have lots of
                      games they can play! It does require permission though...

                      > > The 14th is void. If one says it is not, it is not
                      > > for them. It's another example of the fans not wanting
                      > > to quit the fake game.
                      >
                      > The number for whom the 14th is void is miniscule. Wasn't
                      > it Benson who spent so much time and money "trying" to
                      > prove the 16th was void?

                      No, he just collected the official records that proved it for us all.

                      > To use a previous expression,
                      > for the FEDERALs, the 14th is very alive and well.

                      I say that there is no such group as monolithic "FEDERALS". There are
                      conniving co-conspirators though.... And there are recent cases that
                      show that not all "federals" believe in the validity of the 14th
                      amendment, which itself never complied with the requirements for a
                      constitutional amendment but is very popular with many people who can
                      accept "de facto" in place of "de jure" in their lives. Slaves are very
                      accepting, as a group demographic. People who trade labor & substance
                      for fiat are slaves.

                      > Saying otherwise does not make it so, in the non-FF world.

                      Just as I live in the FF world, every one of us has the same rights to
                      their own necessarily subjective view of reality. Is the non-FF world
                      the same one as the non-Michael world? No, it is not, although they are
                      very similar.

                      Saying other than the truth does not make anything so anywhere, although
                      lies are effectual persuaders.

                      > > We can all be money-changers.
                      >
                      > Oh, FF...who is the "We" from which you so frequently
                      > exclude yourself. But using "We," the numbers who may
                      > fit into that specific category is said to be around
                      > 3%, and some of them are merely trying to make the right choice,
                      > rather than using that choice as
                      > an expression of a sovereign exercise. However, that
                      > is merely an opinion that I could not back up.

                      I guess that by "we" here I mean those competent to comprehend the idea
                      of it (money-changing).

                      > > Show me a rights v. privileges argument that was
                      > > dismissed and I'll show you a person who had a
                      > > privilege and didn't realize it wasn't a right.
                      > > Do you really think anyone who uses a Social Security
                      > > number has rights instead of privileges? Do you think
                      > > they are forced to do so?
                      >
                      > > Why am I not forced to do things others claim they are
                      > > forced to do?
                      >
                      > From the collective back to your standard singular "I."

                      To me the collective has blood in their veins. I just use myself as an
                      example.

                      > Do not really see much difference in what I have been
                      > saying and your editorials that followed, as the next
                      > comment demonstrates:
                      >
                      > > Few care to ever claim a republican form of government
                      > > as early as the IMOC or as late as their allocution.
                      >
                      > Were it could be that the IMOC had the same effect
                      > outside the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Alas, there are
                      > more STATES for which that has no effect, and I can
                      > assert that at was useless on three attempts by me.
                      > However, it did work once when I challenged a
                      > suburban district attorney to prove he had taken
                      > the proper oath of office, and my traffic case was:
                      > "Oh, that case has been dismissed." said the "judge."

                      Again, the "IMOC" is THE MOMENT, not the Plan put into effect in the
                      moment! The initial moment of confrontation takes place everywhere, any
                      time, even in the jungle when a tiger rounds the bend in the trail! It
                      occurs in every state and begins every "case". To confuse the IMOC
                      moment with my chosen First Step of Disqualification, is a case of
                      mistaken identity. The Step is taken in the Moment, and if it is not
                      appropriate where you live (although I cannot see how anywhere allows
                      unqualified actors to act!) then there must be another appropriate first
                      step to be taken in that location, other than the usual admissions and
                      confessions and right waivers that 90%+ usually make..

                      > > The more momentum they build, the harder they are to stop.
                      >
                      > Said momentum has been building since the day of sine die.
                      > It has reached tsunami proportions.

                      I notice that nobody has gotten the clue to my defense to (reliance
                      upon??) General Order 100.

                      > > Most lemmings go over the cliffs into the
                      > > sea, but a few survive to propagate the race...
                      >
                      > Darwinism says, it is not the strongest, nor the
                      > smartest that survive, but those who are best able
                      > to adapt to change.

                      Where are lemmings that know how to swim?

                      > > Speak for yourself, because my status quo is just
                      > > how I like it!
                      >
                      > A reversion back to the singular, and back to your
                      > "old form." I frankly fail to see much dissent in
                      > what has been expressed, albeit in a slightly
                      > different manner.

                      Just because I reply to you doesn't mean I dissent. I agree with you a
                      lot. I do appreciate attempts at communication!

                      > > Meanwhile the Silver Liberation Army is fighting
                      > > back and doing what must be done without waiting
                      > > for the masses to approve and copycat. Crash the
                      > > banksters & buy physical silver. That's how to resist!
                      >
                      > Silver Liberation Army? A bit overstated. If the
                      > masses are not participating, how big an "army" can
                      > it be.

                      No, it's not overstated if you are a member of it and you are following
                      along with the story. It has made mainstream news although not under
                      that name. It does not have to be that big either to have a good
                      effect. And it is growing every day, and is not limited to our borders.

                      I would hope that every member of this list has recently bought at least
                      one ounce of silver, and if they have not, well, then that they reap
                      what they sow and get what they deserve.

                      Max Keiser writes:

                      http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/5/5_Ben_Da
                      vies.html

                      Interesting interview with Ben Davies of Hinde Capital. He talks about
                      how 'one individual in particular' has been increasing the demand (and
                      price) for silver with a 'call to arms.' This is a great endorsement for
                      the SLA as having the collective buying power needed to move the price
                      of silver. We've been so successful in fact that the CME has had to
                      raise margin requirements 5 times to try and keep up with the SLA. The
                      resultant cheaper prices and the brazen attempt by the CME to protect
                      financial terrorist No. 1 - Jamie Dimon - ACT AS A RECRUITING MECHANISM
                      FOR NEW SLA MEMBERS. As we double and triple our size, the SLA's numbers
                      hit their own 'criticality' and the stage is set for $500 silver (Ben
                      Davies mentions $490 silver in this interview by the way). Ben Davies is
                      a hedge fund manager operating in the pressure cooker of intense
                      competition who, by necessity, is apolitical. The SLA is purely
                      political. We have identified silver as the market we want to take over
                      and dominate for political reasons; as a means to get rid of the US
                      dollar and JPM, and we have the global numbers to do it. My analysis of
                      the risks and rewards led me to determine that the terrorists
                      controlling the silver market never counted on a global political
                      movement to take them down - by buying silver. I think people are caught
                      off guard that the vulnerability I identified in the Silver market is in
                      fact playing out as I knew it would. Silver is their weak spot. If you
                      had any doubts, this past week's actions by the CME and turncoat
                      momentum traitors should remove those doubts.

                      > While the number of silver Eagles sold has been
                      > unprecedented over the past several months, the 3%
                      > figure used, and I may have gotten that from another
                      > highly read cite, which I will not mention, for Bear's
                      > sake, in the larger scheme, that ain't what will crash the
                      > "banksters."

                      It would if the traitors in government were not using the taxpayers to
                      cover all their bad bets! But so far, that is what is happening. So
                      maybe we need to keep it up and see just how far the Boobus Americanus
                      will foot the bill.

                      > More likely, it is China and India, countries, that
                      > are buying huge quantities of silver, [and gold], It
                      > is the University of Texas taking delivery of $1 billion
                      > in physical gold that is making a difference. Silver
                      > Eagles are a drop in the proverbial "bankster" bucket.

                      It all adds up. The supply of silver is finite and if one doesn't buy
                      any particular ounce of it, another will. Dealers have been sold out
                      and have delayed deliveries. Eric Sprott cannot obtain all that he
                      attempts to obtain. You and I still can get any small amount we can.
                      Weak hands are selling right now.

                      > I do know several people who have been buying silver
                      > and gold for some time. Not one of them thinks in
                      > terms of defeating the "banksters" or "registering"
                      > their "vote" against the de facto government, and they
                      > do not even know there IS a de facto government.
                      > One cannot mix potahtos with tomahtos.

                      I guess this is where the value lies in being able to separate oneself
                      from the herd. I really spend little time caring what others do or
                      think, especially when the lack of their thinking is the topic like you
                      raise here. Commies called them "useful idiots" and "dupes".

                      > FF is avidly read by most, if not all, on this board,
                      > and much of what he contributes has been very beneficial
                      > in learning how to defend oneself in the "land of
                      > make believe" that is a reality for...pick any number
                      > anyone wants...I say 99%, maybe it is 98%, or 97%, who
                      > have the will and the capability to fight the fight
                      > against the corporate FEDERAL and STATE "reality."
                      >
                      > While Bear may have found the tone of my comments
                      > "hopeless," I admit there is such an air in them,
                      > but it is based upon my personal experiences, and
                      > that is the point of posting what I did. I doubt
                      > I am unique in that sentiment.

                      No, you are not unique in that sentiment. BUT, realize that part of
                      your enemy's plan is to demoralize you, and stubbornness alone may keep
                      you fighting another day. Even if I felt suicidal, knowing my enemy
                      wants just that, I am so stubborn I'd refuse to blow my brains out just
                      to disappoint him!

                      > FF leans heavily on his IMOC, but for the vast
                      > majority, it does not apply, for whatever reason[s},
                      > and no matter how ardently he brings it up.

                      This paragraph proves my point that there is confusion between the
                      Moment and What I Do in it! Here's how I "lean on the Moment": If it
                      never occurs then I have no problem; when it does occur I'm ready for
                      it! The Moment can occur for anyone anywhere at any time! The INITIAL
                      MOMENT OF CONFRONTATION! What one does when it occurs depends upon the
                      law where one is! It may indeed be true that in other places outside of
                      California, there is no way to prevent unqualified impersonators from
                      usurping lawful functions and moving the machinery of government. I do
                      find it hard to believe though, but I am not motivated to research the
                      proper response for anywhere I have no need to be in.

                      I would have thought that the US government could keep unqualified
                      actors out of office, but today we have a case where despite massive
                      evidence that we currently do not have a natural born president like our
                      constitution requires it seems that many in both high and low positions
                      do not care when their other interests are in conflict with that fact.

                      Still, those who know and care have acted alone in acts of
                      disqualification (of Obama) in their own cases. Only a few penetrate
                      the media filter so you might learn of them.

                      > In an ideal world, the stark reality of an informed
                      > FF-type response to what is, along with the many
                      > on-point case cites Bear takes the time to research
                      > and so willingly contributes here, would be picked up
                      > as a gauntlet and used against the faux-powers that be.
                      > In the real world, that is not the case.

                      SURE IT IS! All of our worlds are in the real world! The real world is
                      too big for any one of us to fully comprehend! We deal with the part we
                      can!

                      > It is not out of hopeless that I began a challenge
                      > to the COOK COUNTY TREASURER to prove her defective
                      > oath of office has not left the office vacant, while
                      > at the same time, demanding to know exactly what it
                      > is that is being demanded of me to "pay" said property
                      > taxes.

                      Sounds reasonable to me.

                      > I will say that in the initial response, it did NOT
                      > come from the person challenged, rather it was an
                      > unsigned letter stating that the Treasurer did not
                      > have jurisdiction over certain determinations, none
                      > of which addressed my challenge[s]. Notice and Demand
                      > letter three was sent out a few weeks ago.
                      >
                      > The fight, in one form or another, continues...

                      Sounds good. I wonder whose job it is to use unsigned letters to answer
                      for challenged individuals... maybe you could ask and say you'd like to
                      apply for that job! Would you have to be a licensed attorney or in that
                      jurisdiction, are there no qualifications for any job?!

                      > Cheers, all...

                      Yes, be of good cheer because the impossible system is widely being
                      revealed as being impossible to more and more people every passing day.

                      Regards,

                      FF
                    • Michael
                      ... With so much to learn in order to do, this is one of those lessons that shouts out as key, for it does silence those who would otherwise trod over one s
                      Message 10 of 13 , May 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                        > The game that I've been saying is over for years
                        > is the one that relies upon the use of the word
                        > "dollar". Every time my usurping impersonating
                        > neighbors come against me for some reason, they
                        > always involve the use of that word! But they
                        > are never using it properly! So I don't play
                        > with them and they get saddened by my reaction
                        > to their administrative attempts.

                        With so much to learn in order to do, this is one
                        of those lessons that shouts out as key, for it does
                        silence those who would otherwise trod over one's
                        singular, real existence. It may not be the "silver
                        bullet," but it has the effect of driving a wooden
                        stake through the heart of the opposition.

                        Mention has been made of my case against the Illinois
                        Toll Authority challenging what is being demanded
                        as payment. While a court "loss," it has not resulted
                        in any. In my appeal, which was dismissed as "untimely,"
                        in a ploy used by the appellate court to chicken out,
                        the Summary Order dismissing it came back as "This
                        Order Is Not Precedential And Is Not To Be Cited."
                        Certainly, the money issue struck a nerve!

                        I recently read that no court will allow ANY case,
                        from one who is without an attorney and who wins,
                        [and even those who do not "win" but raise the issue
                        of "money."] to be published lest the publication of
                        it be used as a learning tool for others and be a
                        source for more of the same.

                        Everyone, [excepting those who already "do"] on this
                        site should take note of the FACT that the money issue
                        is an important tool to be used in every possible
                        instance where any form of government is making a
                        demand to pay either "$" or "pay the amount..." The
                        door was just opened as wide as can be. Walk through
                        it to your advantage.

                        The most common type of court case anyone is exposed
                        to is traffic. Use the money issue when a determination
                        of "guilt" is made. Object and demand to know what is
                        being demanded as a fine, in what form, etc. This small
                        step, if used by many, and there is NO excuse why not,
                        will lead to bigger steps, like me now challenging what
                        is being demanded to pay property tax, and HOW was the
                        assessment determined?

                        If you are not willing to take the first step, then
                        realize you are sanctioning that which you seemingly
                        oppose. Is it "fear?" Turn that "fear" into fight!

                        Thanks to FF for presenting this, among so many
                        other issues. The FF, a user of gems who is one
                        himself.

                        Silver has just taken a precipitious drop from just
                        under $50 to as low as just under $34. This may be
                        one of the most significant fire sales for silver
                        in everyone's lifetime. Those who want to be "doers"
                        have to take SOME form of action, and buying silver,
                        in any quantity, is one of the most important ways
                        of making a difference when it otherwise seems so
                        futile.

                        Buying silver is better than making a "registered vote."

                        Resolve to make a difference, today...everyday! Making
                        a difference is a matter of choice. Make your choice
                        a matter of habit, and you will soon see a difference.

                        If anyone has better ideas, post one!

                        Let me add that I have fought other cases, mostly
                        traffic, that I lost. My argument was pretty solid,
                        and no state attorney effectively counter-argued me.
                        It was always the judge who made a final adverse
                        determination, often for a bogus reason, and the
                        appellate would back up the decision.

                        Cost to me? Fines. Cost to the STATE, double or
                        triple, if not more, in obtaining the fines. The
                        system cannot afford to operate that way, but it
                        absorbs minor losses, like mine, because it is
                        cheaper than taking on hundreds of others who would
                        choose to fight, who simply choose not to fight.

                        I may not be the best example, nor offer the best
                        examples, but I am in there, refusing to cooperate
                        with the corporate. I present my poorly executed
                        examples for others to use and improve upon, at will.
                        It is from here that I received so much in order to do.

                        Isn't that what this site is all about, he asked
                        rhetorically?

                        Cheers!

                        mn
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... George Gordon said, The conversation breaks right down. That s what I want out of every IMOC. I want us all to go separate ways and have a nice day.
                        Message 11 of 13 , May 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Michael wrote:
                          > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
                          > wrote:
                          >
                          > > The game that I've been saying is over for years
                          > > is the one that relies upon the use of the word
                          > > "dollar". Every time my usurping impersonating
                          > > neighbors come against me for some reason, they
                          > > always involve the use of that word! But they
                          > > are never using it properly! So I don't play
                          > > with them and they get saddened by my reaction
                          > > to their administrative attempts.
                          >
                          > With so much to learn in order to do, this is one
                          > of those lessons that shouts out as key, for it does
                          > silence those who would otherwise trod over one's
                          > singular, real existence. It may not be the "silver
                          > bullet," but it has the effect of driving a wooden
                          > stake through the heart of the opposition.

                          George Gordon said, "The conversation breaks right down."

                          That's what I want out of every IMOC. I want us all to go separate ways
                          and have a nice day. Otherwise no one knows what might happen! I
                          definitely know that some paycheck anticipators may become at risk at
                          their station at the public feeding trough, and make that known in the
                          moments following the IMOC (which takes a minute or less, right? Maybe
                          just a millisecond? Nanosecond now with robot computer witnesses??).

                          My last IMOC and subsequent hours proved very interesting. I have to
                          say, unless they're just stalling for time while targeting the guided
                          missile, or prepping the sniper, they do have me thinking that I'm on
                          the right track for achieving my main goal, which is to be left alone.

                          > Mention has been made of my case against the Illinois
                          > Toll Authority challenging what is being demanded
                          > as payment. While a court "loss," it has not resulted
                          > in any. In my appeal, which was dismissed as "untimely,"
                          > in a ploy used by the appellate court to chicken out,
                          > the Summary Order dismissing it came back as "This
                          > Order Is Not Precedential And Is Not To Be Cited."
                          > Certainly, the money issue struck a nerve!

                          When you win, recognize it and back off, is a lesson I learned on my
                          very first case. I won too early, but was a new law student
                          (non-school) and had plans to see this and that later step "work". So
                          when I won early I didn't recognize it, and then I was dumb enough to
                          make sure they continued with the process. In doing so, we all had lots
                          of "fun" and I got to train many new hires (I was the grist for their
                          mill) for three years. I was worked hard, but I was happy to get the
                          education I so wanted! BUT, looking back, I wish I had spared myself
                          the trouble, because other following cases took other time that could
                          have used more quality time and attention...

                          > I recently read that no court will allow ANY case,
                          > from one who is without an attorney and who wins,
                          > [and even those who do not "win" but raise the issue
                          > of "money."] to be published lest the publication of
                          > it be used as a learning tool for others and be a
                          > source for more of the same.

                          That's okay, because followers need not apply. We all need our own
                          position that we own, not somebody else's that sounds good and we'll try
                          it out.

                          > Everyone, [excepting those who already "do"] on this
                          > site should take note of the FACT that the money issue
                          > is an important tool to be used in every possible
                          > instance where any form of government is making a
                          > demand to pay either "$" or "pay the amount..." The
                          > door was just opened as wide as can be. Walk through
                          > it to your advantage.

                          Sylvester Stallone just said it! "ABSOLUTELY!"

                          > The most common type of court case anyone is exposed
                          > to is traffic. Use the money issue when a determination
                          > of "guilt" is made.

                          Better yet, in the IMOC!!! And every step thereafter!!! Make these
                          paycheck anticipators burn a few calories off between their ears!

                          > Object and demand to know what is
                          > being demanded as a fine, in what form, etc.

                          No!! Too vague and might lead to embarrassing admissions and
                          confessions! The question for the Knaves is:

                          (As taught to me by Merrill Jenkins):

                          "WHAT is the current MONEY OF ACCOUNT of the United States and HOW MUCH
                          of THAT is a "Dollar" Quantity?"

                          When you asked that question, you just pulled the pin...what comes next
                          could be "interesting". A lot depends upon your personal knowledge of
                          the subject so that you can refute lies instantaneously, as a lie
                          acceded to looks like fact in the record.

                          > This small
                          > step, if used by many, and there is NO excuse why not,

                          Right! NO EXCUSE WHY NOT!! Except that the pizza on the front seat
                          might get cold! Or, my kids were at home alone, or...etc.

                          > will lead to bigger steps, like me now challenging what
                          > is being demanded to pay property tax, and HOW was the
                          > assessment determined?

                          Here is a story I might have told before, short version. I guy I know
                          used pinto beans to pay, and waited for an objection. No objection! Why
                          would a paycheck-anticipating unsworn impersonator of an assessor want
                          to rock his own cushy boat!? That guy was not the only one to say "No!"
                          in his own unique style. None of this depends upon your adversary
                          understanding anything! Did you hear? At last check almost half of
                          Detroit's Americans cannot read! Does anyone know the numbers where
                          they are? I don't care what they are, I assume everyone I meet is a
                          moron or imbecile until they prove otherwise. I'm a self-designated
                          idiot clown, in the original sense. I'm pleased as punch to meet a
                          genius!

                          > If you are not willing to take the first step, then
                          > realize you are sanctioning that which you seemingly
                          > oppose. Is it "fear?" Turn that "fear" into fight!

                          FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real

                          Prove that wrong to yourself, go ahead, try!

                          > Thanks to FF for presenting this, among so many
                          > other issues. The FF, a user of gems who is one
                          > himself.

                          Aw shucks, I like you too! Last gems I used were at an Indian Casino -
                          makum heap big wampum! Unfortunately, two squaws ripped me off for most
                          of that big wampum. I know, I sound callous using that term, but they
                          used it first ("kinda like" Blacks use the N word)! They use their
                          Tribal membership to make the cost of fighting their rip-off too much
                          for me, and they were successful. That's okay because I take their
                          whole casino for many many times more nickels than they got taking two
                          little orange tourmalines.

                          A funny thing about casinos is the front panels on a lot of the slot
                          machines have gems prominently displayed among piles of paper money and
                          columns of gold and silver coins, and gold and silver bars. The Gems
                          are actually the most concentrated form of wealth in the picture. If
                          you had to run with the first thing you'd grab, most Americans would
                          grab the paper money. So sad! Orientals tend to grok the inclusion of
                          gems, while few Americans can even approximate the values.

                          > Silver has just taken a precipitious drop from just
                          > under $50 to as low as just under $34. This may be
                          > one of the most significant fire sales for silver
                          > in everyone's lifetime. Those who want to be "doers"
                          > have to take SOME form of action, and buying silver,
                          > in any quantity, is one of the most important ways
                          > of making a difference when it otherwise seems so
                          > futile.

                          Yes, and if one is at all interested but skeptical, there is much
                          written about it already.

                          > Buying silver is better than making a "registered vote."

                          By your own law it is THE MONEY. Most Americans have no American money.
                          Even bums had it when I was a kid! Everybody had it, but went for paper
                          instead, well, not "everybody".

                          > Resolve to make a difference, today...everyday! Making
                          > a difference is a matter of choice. Make your choice
                          > a matter of habit, and you will soon see a difference.

                          Jump in, the water's fine!

                          > Let me add that I have fought other cases, mostly
                          > traffic, that I lost. My argument was pretty solid,
                          > and no state attorney effectively counter-argued me.
                          > It was always the judge who made a final adverse
                          > determination, often for a bogus reason, and the
                          > appellate would back up the decision.

                          THAT is WHY disqualifying EVERYBODY is cost effective for you!

                          > Cost to me? Fines. Cost to the STATE, double or
                          > triple, if not more, in obtaining the fines. The
                          > system cannot afford to operate that way, but it
                          > absorbs minor losses, like mine, because it is
                          > cheaper than taking on hundreds of others who would
                          > choose to fight, who simply choose not to fight.
                          >
                          > I may not be the best example, nor offer the best
                          > examples, but I am in there, refusing to cooperate
                          > with the corporate.

                          That is the crux, corporeal versus corporate.

                          > I present my poorly executed
                          > examples for others to use and improve upon, at will.
                          > It is from here that I received so much in order to do.
                          >
                          > Isn't that what this site is all about, he asked
                          > rhetorically?

                          Who is to judge your fight when nobody but you is there to witness it
                          live? There is not time to wait until somebody "does it" perfectly and
                          then also happens to write about it perfectly on this here list!

                          > Cheers!

                          "If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right."
                          - George Gordon

                          Regards,

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