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

Re: DA advice to police

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McKEE
    In order to have any LAWFUL authority an officer MUST have TAKEN & FILED their oath of office & IF necessary their bond PRIOR to executing their DUTIES. IF
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 22 9:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      In order to have any LAWFUL authority an officer MUST have TAKEN & FILED their oath of office & IF necessary their bond PRIOR to executing their DUTIES.  IF they FAIL to do so they are at best a “de facto” officer ACTING under COLOR OF LAW.

       

      “Judge Christian had not qualified for his new office. [6] Until an officer-elect or officer-designate takes the oath [238 Cal.App.2d 256] of office and gives whatever bonds are required, he is not authorized to discharge the duties of the office. He is not an incumbent. ( Hull v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 174, 176.)

      Cases involving de facto judges are to be distinguished from those cited by appellant, such as Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, 214 Cal. 562 [6 P.2d 944], in which the judge's title to office is not challenged, but a judgment by a judge disqualified by reason of his ownership of stock in a corporate litigant has been held completely void because of the absolute prohibition of section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 

       

      ENSHER, ALEXANDER & BARSOOM, INC., v. MARTHA ENSHER (1965), 238 Cal.App.2d 250

       

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/238/250.html

       

       

      "Given the basic purpose of the oath it follows in reason that the requirement of execution of the oath "before" entering upon the duties to be undertaken establishes the execution of the oath as a condition precedent to a lawful undertaking of those duties. It becomes, in a sense, a matter of eligibility, for one who cannot take the oath, in effect, is rendered ineligible for public employment. (Cf. Reed v. Hammond, 18 Cal.App. 442 [123 P. 346]; Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 117.) While the employment which is the subject of this appeal is undoubtedly not a "public office" as contemplated by Government Code, section 1303 (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698 [249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145]), nevertheless the importance of the oath of office as a prerequisite in the eyes of the Legislature is indicated by its action in declaring the exercise of the function of a public office before taking the oath of office to be a misdemeanor.

      ...

      When called upon to construe laws requiring execution of the oath and filing of a bond within a certain period of time the California courts have held them to be mandatory (see Norton v. Lewis, supra, 34 Cal.App. 621; People v. Perkins, 85 Cal. 509, 511 [26 P. 245]; Hill v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 105 Cal.App. 156, 158-159 [286 P. 1103, 158 A.L.R. 639])." 

       

      Smith v. County Engineer , 266 Cal.App.2d 645 (1968)

       

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/266/645.html 

       

       

      "[3] Under a constitutional government such as ours, there can be no such thing as an OFFICE DE FACTO, as distinguished from an OFFICER DE FACTO. Hence, the general rule that the acts of an officer de facto are valid has no application where the office itself does not exist. BOYER v. FOWLER, 1 Wash. Terr. 101 (1860); 3 E. McQuillin, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 12.104 (3d ed. rev. 1973); DE JURE OFFICE AS CONDITION OF A DE FACTO OFFICER, Annot., 99 A.L.R. 294 (1935)."  HIGGINS v. SALEWSKY, 17 Wn. App. 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 562 P.2d 655 (March 28, 1977).

      http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/appellate/017wnapp/017wnapp0207.htm   

       

       

      “[8] Because Judge Woodard was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial actions taken by him in the case below were without authority.27  The Judgment Nisi therefore is without effect.

      ...

      Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard's qualifications at the trial level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done wholly without authority, and thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, and therefore merely voidable.  Under either analysis, we must reverse.  But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had never taken the oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29

       

      PRIETO BAIL BONDS v. STATE, 994 S.W.2d 316, 320, 321 (May 27, 1999).

       

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RyQTXyYtonEJ:constitutionalgov.us/Archive/RTM/PrietoBBondsVTexas.rtf+994+S.W.2d+316&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

       

      And as such there SHOULD be NO IMMUNITY for their actions & the ACTOR in question SHOULD be CIVILLY & CRIMINALLY LIABLE for their violations of people’s CIVIL RIGHTS done under COLOR OF LAW under STATE & FEDERAL LAW. 

       

      CIVIL CODE 52.3.  (a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California. (rest omitted)

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=43-53

        
        
      PENAL CODE 146.  Every public officer, or person pretending to be a public officer, who, under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authority, does any of the following, without a regular process or other lawful authority, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
         (a) Arrests any person or detains that person against his or her will.
         (b) Seizes or levies upon any property.
         (c) Dispossesses any one of any lands or tenements.
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=142-181
        
        
      PENAL CODE 236.  False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.
        
      PENAL CODE 237.  (a) False imprisonment is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the false imprisonment be effected by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit, it shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. (rest omitted)
        
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=236-237 
        

       

      “In Peckham v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 36 Cal.App.2d 214 [97 P.2d 472], which was an action for false arrest and false imprisonment, it was held that it was the duty of one making an arrest without a warrant to bring the person so arrested before a proper magistrate without unnecessary delay, and if this was not done the officer or private person who made the arrest became a trespasser from the beginning, and was liable for false arrest and imprisonment. In that case plaintiff was incarcerated for almost 24 hours before being released and was never taken before a magistrate. It was held that the question as to whether or not an unreasonable time had elapsed after the arrest before taking plaintiff [93 Cal.App.2d 514] to a magistrate was a factual question for the jury. (See, also, Korkman v. Hanlon Drydock etc. Co. , 53 Cal.App. 147 [199 P. 8801; 12 Cal.Jur. § 4, p. 433.) The Peckham case also cites 22 American Jurisprudence [1939], page 366, False Imprisonment, section 20, stating the rule to be: “‘It is the duty of an officer or other person making an arrest to take the prisoner before a magistrate with reasonable diligence and without unnecessary delay; and the rule is well settled that whether the arrest is made with or without a warrant, an action for false imprisonment may be predicated upon an unreasonable delay in taking the person arrested before a magistrate ..., regardless of the lawfulness of the arrest in the first instance ... an officer arresting a person without a warrant, as on view under statute, is liable for a false imprisonment where he detains the prisoner an unreasonable time without securing a warrant or other legal authority for his detention.’ (See, also, 22 Am.Jur. § 85, p. 412.)”  Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal.App.2d 508 (1949)

      http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/93/508.html

       

       

      42 USC 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

      Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia .

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html   

       

       

      18 USC 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

      Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html 
        
        

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

      Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

      This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

      This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

      Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242

       

      By LAW in California it appears to me that a police officer’s oath of office SHOULD be on file with the COUNTY CLERK since they are EMPLOYED by a CITY & their DUTIES are of a LOCAL nature.

       

      GOVERNMENT CODE 1363.  (a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required as follows:

      (b)   The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited to any particular county, in the office of the Secretary of State.

         (2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and, except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local, or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties.

         (3) Each judge of a superior court, the county clerk, the executive officer or court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall file a copy of his or her official oath, signed with his or her own proper signature, in the office of the Secretary of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed his or her oath.

         (4) The oath of all officers for any independent special district, as defined in Section 56044, in the office of the clerk or secretary of that district.

         (b) Every oath of office filed pursuant to this section with the Secretary of State shall include the expiration date of the officer’s term of office, if any.  In the case of an oath of office for an appointed officer, if there is no expiration date set forth in the oath, or the officer leaves office before the expiration date, the appointing authority shall report in writing to the Secretary of State the officer’s date of departure from office.

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1360-1369 

       

      So KNOWING this, I view subpoenaing the police department about some BS “belief” about the SUPPOSED important of the second section of the oath of office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY years ago INSTEAD of subpoenaing the COUNTY CLERK for that ALLEGED officers oath of office that is REQUIRED to be on file with them in order for that ALLEGED “officer” to have any LAWFUL authority & being able to DOCUMENT that they did NOT so & thus was ACTING under COLOR OF LAW as a WASTEFUL STRATEGY & a FRACKIN WASTE OF TIME.

       

      Oh golly Mr. McKee, I didn't know you weren't trying to be a jerk.  You really caught me off guard with your...honesty.  The subpoena was for the OFFICER TO BRING HIS CORRECT OATH OF OFFICE TO THE TRIAL YOU BRICK HEAD!  It doesn't matter to me one ioda where he frickin FILED it!  GET IT?  He could have filed it in your ear for that matter.  The subpoena was for him to PRODUCE IT AND BRING IT WITH HIM TO COURT!  He couldn't do that because he didn't have it!  That's the point!  Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to defecate on me and my experience and my opinion and for that matter anything else of mine you might discover that you have something to LEARN!  That ain't going to happen, is it McKreep?  You just know enough to show your ignorance but not enough to conceal it.

       

      Take your cut-and-paste manure and stick it some place!

       

      Rickity

       

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citizensoftheUSofA/message/101494

       

      And I view the TYPE of person that TRIED to MISREPRESENT the FACT that their case was DISMISSED because the police officer was a NO SHOW & instead TRIED to make people “believe” that their SUPPOSED “strategy” of subpoenaing the PURPORTED officers oath of office from the police department was a “silver bullet” as either a MISGUIDED, DELUSIONAL FOOL, a DELIBERATE DISINFORMANT or someone PLAYING DEMOSTHENES based on their many personal attacks against me.

       

      Patrick in California

       

      Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

       

      "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." -- Molly Ivins

       

      "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."--Abraham Lincoln

       

      "It isn't the jumping that kills you. It is the sudden stop."-Unknown

       

       

       

       

      --- In citizensoftheUSofA@yahoogroups.com , jai mann <jai_mann@...> wrote:

      >  

      > Regardless of the fact that these things are supposed to be on file with the County Recorder , it puts the ball in the court of the alleged officer to provide some thing.

      >

      > Do you see this as a wasteful strategy? It seems to me that if every individual who had to deal with alleged officers made such requests, that it would slow down the gravy train.

      >

      > --- On Sat, 7/21/12, Patrick <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:

      >

      > From: Patrick <paradoxmagnus@...>

      > Subject: [citizensoftheUSofA] Re: DA advice to police

      > To: citizensoftheUSofA@yahoogroups.com

      > Date: Saturday, July 21, 2012, 6:19 PM

      >

      > So Rickity, WHY did you file your subpoena for the ALLEGED officer's oath of office with the Roseville police department?

      >

      > Legally WHERE was it SUPPOSED to be filed?

      >

      > Patrick in California

       

    • stonekutteral
      I would like to see the case where the second section of the oath of office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY years ago
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 22 7:06 PM
      • 0 Attachment

         I would like to see the case where " the second section of the oath of office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY years ago "    - as a friend recently sent a letter to the Secretary of State of California, asking if California employees and officers had to have the whole oath or just part of it, and the answer he got was that they needed to have the whole oath of office as per the Constitution of California...... as for filing the request it seems to me that it should be filed into the case that one is involved in, and that a no show by the alleged officer would be due to the fact that they do not have the oath filed properly. I used this as part of my defense, after reading Frog Farmers opinion, and they had no answer on that score, so I personally believe it is not a moot point, I do believe that Frog Farmer is right and there are no qualified players in California. If you can please supply the case cite I have  requested  here, then that maybe will change my mind, but the law is the law, and the law says they need to have their oath of office. Case cites are useful when the circumstance is identical, but most are not, and rather than consent to the use of a case cite where it does not apply, I prefer to use the law as written and let THEM have the burden  of proving it does not apply to them, rather than given them the point for free. They are the ones with the burden of proof, so I believe they should have to carry every ounce of that burden, rather than letting them get away with anything . Surely you can supply the case cite for us , as you are being so positive about it . Maybe you can show us that Frog Farmer is mistaken after all, and they just leave him alone for some other reason than him being right. Thanks in advance! Cheers!!   Al


        So KNOWING this, I view subpoenaing the police department about some BS “belief” about the SUPPOSED important of the second section of the oath of office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY years ago INSTEAD of subpoenaing the COUNTY CLERK for that ALLEGED officers oath of office that is REQUIRED to be on file with them in order for that ALLEGED “officer” to have any LAWFUL authority & being able to DOCUMENT that they did NOT so & thus was ACTING under COLOR OF LAW as a WASTEFUL STRATEGY & a FRACKIN WASTE OF TIME.

         

      • frogfrmr@frogfarm.org
        ... It doesn t happen here. At least, nobody has shown me that it does. ... This just goes to show the level of general understanding, maybe soon they ll need
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 22 8:34 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > In order to have any LAWFUL authority an officer MUST have TAKEN & FILED
          > their oath of office & IF necessary their bond PRIOR to executing their
          > DUTIES. IF they FAIL to do so they are at best a “de facto” officer
          > ACTING under COLOR OF LAW.

          It doesn't happen here. At least, nobody has shown me that it does.

          > “Judge Christian had not qualified for his new office. [6] Until an
          > officer-elect or officer-designate takes the oath [238 Cal.App.2d 256] of
          > office and gives whatever bonds are required, he is not authorized to
          > discharge the duties of the office. He is not an incumbent. (Hull v.
          > Superior Court, 63 Cal. 174, 176.)

          This just goes to show the level of general understanding, maybe soon
          they'll need a case to prove that when it rains, things do get wet. or
          does someone already have the citation on that?

          > in
          > which the judge's title to office is not challenged,

          Yeah, like 99.999% of the Sheople feel comfortable with...

          Heck, by the time the judge in my case is disqualifed, he's already at the
          end of a good sized line. It might be the reason I don't meet judges
          anymore.

          > "Given the basic purpose of the oath it follows in reason that the
          > requirement of execution of the oath "before" entering upon the duties to
          > be
          > undertaken establishes the execution of the oath as a condition precedent
          > to a lawful undertaking of those duties.
          > (Cf. Reed v. Hammond, 18 Cal.App. 442 [123 P. 346];

          But people must have a good reason to ignore the requirement, like a pizza
          getting cold on the front seat, or it is the kids' bedtime. They waive
          rights to formal impossibilities that would guarantee their wins, in favor
          of expedince and convenience where the loss is "acceptable". They aren't
          hungry enough yet.

          > When called upon to construe laws requiring execution of the oath and
          > filing
          > of a bond within a certain period of time the California courts have held
          > them to be mandatory (see Norton v. Lewis, supra, 34 Cal.App. 621; People
          > v.
          > Perkins, 85 Cal. 509, 511 [26 P. 245]; Hill v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.,
          > 105 Cal.App. 156, 158-159 [286 P. 1103, 158 A.L.R. 639])."

          You have the right to waive any and all rights you may be requested to
          waive. They cannot believe people could be so stupid, so they even have a
          form where each waived right is initialled away by the waiver-maker. It's
          on 14" paper, and its name is the TAHL Waiver form, so most people think
          it is "tall" versus short.

          > we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a
          > similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had
          > never
          > taken the oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath
          > prescribed
          > by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or
          > de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29

          But look at how long the case progresses where it might have been nipped
          in the bud at the scene of the alleged crime by one determined to not
          waste time with usurpers and impersonators and impostors. There was a
          recently cited code section that admitted that people pretend to be
          officers! Yet victims cooperate. They must have been well indoctrinated
          in the schools.

          Freedom based upon law in this country is based upon words arranged in the
          English language. George Gordon taught me how to make the conversation
          "break right down". It's fun. Try it; you'll like it.

          Most everyone waives the right to counsel during interrogation, the right
          to see the magistrate immediately (the earlier to disqualify the fake
          officer and then the fake magistrate), the right to a probable cause
          hearing where the witnesses can be impeached, complete and proper
          arraignment, and much more as the case is permitted to proceed.

          Too bad; so sad.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Patrick McKEE
          Here is the case WHERE the California Supreme Court ruled the second part of the oath of office INVALID because of the 1st Amendment over FORTY years ago. Two
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 23 12:39 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is the case WHERE the California Supreme Court ruled the second part of
            the oath of office INVALID because of the 1st Amendment over FORTY years
            ago.



            "Two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court control this case.
            They make it clear that the oath required by the second paragraph of section
            3 of article XX of the California Constitution is invalid because it bars
            persons from public employment for a type of association that may not be
            proscribed consistently with First Amendment rights. These cases determine
            that the paragraph is invalid.

            ...

            On the authority of Keyishian v. Board of Regents, supra, 385 U.S. 589, and
            Elfbrandt v. Russell, supra, 384 U.S. 11, it must be held that the oath
            required by the second paragraph of section 3, article XX of the California
            Constitution is invalid. Pockman v. Leonard, supra, 39 Cal.2d 676, holding
            to the contrary, is overruled. fn. 1"



            VOGEL V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 68 Cal.2d 18 (1967)



            http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal2d/68/18.html



            Can you say SUPREMACY CLAUSE?



            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
            Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
            Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
            the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
            Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Clause
            2, Article. VII, Constitution of the United States

            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html



            Now that does NOT mean that their OATH OF OFFICE is a dead issue.



            For example, a police officer is APPOINTED as a "peace officer" by virtue of
            their LOCAL employment. DOESN'T that mean that they & their chief of police
            that APPOINTS them SHOULD file their OATH OF OFFICE with the COUNTY CLERK?
            And IF they did NOT, would NOT that mean that they had FAILED "to file his
            or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed" & their "office"
            had technically become VACANT?



            And superior court judges are elected COUNTY OFFICERS. DOESN'T that mean
            that they SHOULD also file their OATH OF OFFICE with the COUNTY CLERK? And
            IF they did NOT, would NOT that mean that they had FAILED "to file his or
            her required oath or bond within the time prescribed" & their "office" had
            technically become VACANT?



            A few years ago I made an OPEN RECORDS request to the COUNTRY CLERK about
            the oaths of office for every CHIEF OF POLICE, certain JUDGES, POLICE
            OFFICERS & the SHERIFF. ONLY the SHERIFF'S oath was on file.



            Patrick in California



            Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/



            PS - Al, you ever go to Drake's Brewery in San Leandro or do you singa?



            "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
            is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus



            "Mass mind control was an art in Old Testament times and it is not a lost
            art, but a perfected one." - Unknown



            "The moral of the story is that words are mankind's greatest weapon; as
            shown in this quote,"' There are weapons that are simply thoughts,
            attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men.'" - Rod Serling,
            The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, S01E22 of the TWILIGHT ZONE



            "Definition of stupid: Knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still
            believing the lies." - Unknown
          • frogfrmr@frogfarm.org
            ... Except that they cannot rule that their own constitution is unconstitutional. I saw a case once at a patriot meeting where they ruled that for the
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 25 12:01 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              > I would like to see the case where " the second section of the oath of
              > office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY
              > years ago "

              Except that they cannot rule that their own constitution is
              unconstitutional. I saw a case once at a patriot meeting where they ruled
              that for the purposes of a commie janitor, who could not affect one's
              rights, it was okay if he didn't take the right oath, but that a case
              where someone who could affect one's rights had yet to be brought to the
              court for a decision, and they hinted that where rights were involved it
              might be different. Wish I could find that case.

              > - as a friend recently sent a letter to the Secretary of
              > State of California, asking if California employees and officers had to
              > have the whole oath or just part of it, and the answer he got was that
              > they needed to have the whole oath of office as per the Constitution of
              > California......

              The point is, if a new officer never encounters Article XX, section 3, how
              could he ever uphold it, or any other provision? They never read it to
              discover their oath requirement! Or any other part of it! Everyone
              depends upon being trained on the job by a predecessor. By now, nobody
              knows anything about anything.

              > as for filing the request it seems to me that it should
              > be filed into the case that one is involved in, and that a no show by the
              > alleged officer would be due to the fact that they do not have the oath
              > filed properly. I used this as part of my defense, after reading Frog
              > Farmers opinion, and they had no answer on that score, so I personally
              > believe it is not a moot point, I do believe that Frog Farmer is right
              > and there are no qualified players in California. If you can please
              > supply the case cite I have requested here, then that maybe will change
              > my mind, but the law is the law, and the law says they need to have their
              > oath of office.

              Look at the methods for amending the constitution. It doesn't say that
              any branch can declare it amended by itself. It doesn't say it can be
              amended by a court decision. California's constitution had to pass
              scrutiny and be found to be constitutional when the state applied for
              admission to the union.

              > Case cites are useful when the circumstance is identical,
              > but most are not, and rather than consent to the use of a case cite where
              > it does not apply, I prefer to use the law as written and let THEM have
              > the burden of proving it does not apply to them, rather than given them
              > the point for free. They are the ones with the burden of proof, so I
              > believe they should have to carry every ounce of that burden, rather than
              > letting them get away with anything

              Exactly. Too bad it took Patrick to be the first to come up with their
              only possible excuse. None of them ever come up with it, and I never
              wanted to mention it because I personally do not agree with it and didn't
              want to give it any credibility. Patrick is the first I've ever seen to
              ever come up with it as a retort to the oath requirement. It is their only
              answer.

              > Surely you can supply the case cite
              > for us , as you are being so positive about it . Maybe you can show us
              > that Frog Farmer is mistaken after all, and they just leave him alone for
              > some other reason than him being right. Thanks in advance! Cheers!! Al

              Oh, they have a case cite alright! The fact that there are so many people
              on both sides of the issue tells me that it is still a political question.
              And when I meet an impersonator who never heard of the issue, or Article
              XX section 3, then I know they have to be as phony and lacking in
              authority as I would be if I started ordering them around.

              > So KNOWING this, I view subpoenaing the police department about some BS
              > “belief” about the SUPPOSED important of the second section of the oath of
              > office that was ruled INVALID by the California Supreme Court over FORTY
              > years ago INSTEAD of subpoenaing the COUNTY CLERK for that ALLEGED
              > officers oath of office that is REQUIRED to be on file with them in order
              > for that ALLEGED “officer” to have any LAWFUL authority & being able to
              > DOCUMENT that they did NOT so & thus was ACTING under COLOR OF LAW as a
              > WASTEFUL STRATEGY & a FRACKIN WASTE OF TIME.

              I agree with that! Even ignoring the second paragraph issue, they fail
              miserably in filing ANYTHING resembling the oath minus that paragraph. And
              their bonds are not in order either. The county clerk needs one as well,
              don't forget!

              The time to win the case is in chambers at the magistrate's office
              immediately following the arrest (which you earn by not providing "ID"),
              where you lay out your agenda and see if they need something to fill their
              time. My agenda's topic headings take two pages. Arraignment is about
              half way down the first page. They don't do those here. Bummer. The fun
              stops.

              Don't get me wrong, they pretend to do them, and they say they've been
              done, but the proof isn't to be found in the record. or in the hearing
              where it is to occur. Nobody really requires a proper arraignment,
              probably just to be nice. When I and my friends do, the magic number of
              attempts seems to be nine. Then they give up for violating the speedy
              trial rule, if nothing else.

              There are specific elements to an arraignment. How many people have you
              ever seen require them all? I've only seen it in our local study group,
              never from a Regular Rube, who have mostly taught themselves to plead,
              "guilty with explanation your honor". How sickening!

              Regards,

              FF
            • frogfrmr@frogfarm.org
              ... I collected over 40 local oaths, and none matched the required oath, and only one came close. And few matched each other! Quite a hodge-podge of oaths,
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 25 12:13 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                > A few years ago I made an OPEN RECORDS request to the COUNTRY CLERK about
                > the oaths of office for every CHIEF OF POLICE, certain JUDGES, POLICE
                > OFFICERS & the SHERIFF. ONLY the SHERIFF'S oath was on file.

                I collected over 40 local oaths, and none matched the required oath, and
                only one came close. And few matched each other! Quite a hodge-podge of
                oaths, made me wonder where they got them all from!

                Regards,

                FF
              • hobot
                In the too common situation where imposters continue to act as if they had any authority, a powerful legal counter is to use their acting without oath/bond as
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 25 1:04 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In the too common situation where imposters continue to act as if they had
                  any authority, a powerful legal counter is to use their acting without
                  oath/bond
                  as evidence for conspiracy to commit fraud In a traffic ticket case I
                  found
                  the prosecutor lacked an oath and showed the evidence to judge, who
                  said it didn't matter then proceeded to present the STATE;s case against
                  me as if he was the prosecutor. I objected to his acting as prosecutor and
                  got con tempted [told criminal type after I asked] and hauled to jail
                  for a week.
                  Prep mood and home life for the defacto color of law reactions when frauds
                  brought to light. OH yes I'd made plain I was only there specially to
                  challenge
                  valid actors and jurisdiction. Search up
                  conspiracy to commit fraud as one of few charges imposters recoil from.

                  hobot.
                • frogfrmr@frogfarm.org
                  ... Calif. Penal code section 988: 988. The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 25 10:00 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I have not been on this forum in quite some time.  I believe you supplied
                    > the criteria for a proper arraignment once on this forum.  I could be
                    > wrong.  Would you be kind enough to supply your criteria(or checklist)
                    > for a proper arraignment(knowing you are in California)?
                    >  
                    > regards,
                    >  
                    > Moisha Pippik
                    >

                    Calif. Penal code section 988:

                    988. The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or
                    prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the
                    accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant
                    a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any,
                    including the list of witnesses, and asking the defendant whether the
                    defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the accusatory pleading;
                    provided, that where the accusatory pleading is a complaint charging
                    a misdemeanor, a copy of the same need not be delivered to any
                    defendant unless requested by the defendant.



                    Breaking it down:

                    988. The arraignment ... consists in reading the
                    accusatory pleading to the defendant

                    They never do it. They summamrize it, interpret it, read parts of it, but
                    never will they read all of it, and nobody (else) makes them do it.

                    delivering to the defendant a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements
                    thereon, if any,

                    A true copy is a certified copy. Nobody (else) ever requires it from them.
                    also, the "copy" they hand you is one that is unsigned. If it were really
                    a true copy it would be void for that alone.

                    including the list of witnesses

                    Nobody (else) ever asks for that. Maybe it comes out that there are no
                    witnesses!

                    and asking the defendant whether the
                    defendant pleads guilty or not guilty to the accusatory pleading;
                    provided, that where the accusatory pleading is a complaint charging
                    a misdemeanor, a copy of the same need not be delivered to any
                    defendant unless requested by the defendant.

                    Under section 990 you have time to answer. Nobody ever takes it. Nobody
                    ever demands a copy. So they seldom see the no signature part.

                    Regards,

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