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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: DA advice to police

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jul 25, 2012
      > 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 2 of 10 , Jul 25, 2012
        > 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 3 of 10 , Jul 25, 2012
          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 4 of 10 , Jul 25, 2012
            > 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.