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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs

Expand Messages
  • jay hawk
    It doesn t often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based on mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise. Several ago one of
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1 12:48 PM
      It doesn't often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based on mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise. Several ago one of the Supreme Court justices (sorry I can't recall which one right now) got a little attention (at least from a few folks that aren't sound asleep) by saying that everyone in jail is there voluntarily. I'm sure some folks on this list have a better memory than I and may recall who said it.


      --- On Mon, 4/1/13, David Toppin <dave@...> wrote:

      From: David Toppin <dave@...>
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 1:34 PM

       

      That is great! More evidence the [government] NEEDs us to contract with them.
      Sign everything "under protest". In my case, I told the judge I would do
      whatever he wanted me to "under threat, duress, and fear of going to jail"
      and he said, you MUST agree to appear VOLUNTARILY as if there is anything
      voluntary about ANY court process where you are the defendant

      Dave


    • David Toppin
      That was allegedly Robert Bork as I heard it, but that could be wrong. I couldn t find that actual quote when I looked From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 1 1:13 PM

        That was allegedly Robert Bork as I heard it, but that could be wrong.  I couldn't find that actual quote when I looked

         

         

        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jay hawk
        Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:49 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs

         

          Snipped, so Barry doesn't get mad……

      • BOB GREGORY
        *Attorney General Cornyn s letter is a classic example of high-level weasel wording. He gives no examples whatever of a document annotated with Signed under
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 1 2:21 PM
          *Attorney General Cornyn's letter is a classic example of high-level weasel
          wording. He gives no examples whatever of a document annotated with
          "Signed under duress and coersion" but sticks to examples that were "Signed
          under protest." Then in the summary he uses the term "may indicate." So
          what do you have? More or less nothing.

          Moderator/Bear: Yes, plus, beneath the signature is the wrong place to put it. Your signature is at the end of the agreement indicating an agreement with what preceded it. What you put under the signature, to my take, is not part of everything preceding your signature. Research on the phrase "ambiguous signature" will give more information.

          LEGAL DEFINITION:*
          du·ress [doo-res, dyoo-, door-is, dyoor-] Show IPA
          noun
          1.
          compulsion by threat or force <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force>;
          coercion; constraint.
          2. Law. such constraint or coercion as
          will<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will>
          render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its
          influence
          *

          >
          >
        • Levi Philos
          Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork (recently deceased): http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm ...That is,
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 1 2:42 PM
            Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork (recently deceased):
            http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
            ...That is, legally being able to act for him/herself namely, having the legal capacity, ability, and power to manage his/her own affairs, as opposed to someone having relinquished his/her power of judicial action, by giving up his/her power of attorney, and becoming, thereby, a ward of the court. That is, someone considered of unsound mind and under the care of a guardian.

            Truly unbelievable! One is reminded of a remark by Judge Bork, to the effect that 90% of those in prison are there voluntarily i.e., by consent and permission! (You notice that he was not confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice!) Which brings to mind a Supreme Court case, in 1794, where one reads that:

            The only reason, I believe, that a free man is bound by human law, is, that he binds himself. Chisholm v, Georgia, 2, Dall 440, 455.




            On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, jay hawk wrote:
            It doesn't often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based on mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise. Several ago one of the Supreme Court justices (sorry I can't recall which one right now) got a little attention (at least from a few folks that aren't sound asleep) by saying that everyone in jail is there voluntarily. I'm sure some folks on this list have a better memory than I and may recall who said it.

            -- 
            This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
            and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
            unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
            you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
            email and delete the original message.
          • hobot
            ...
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 1 6:47 PM
              > Once in custody the jailers will want you to sign various
              > things and if you decline saying you do not understand and
              > need counsel first, they may charge you with Disorderly
              > Conduct-failure to sign, with its own trial date to deal with.

              > We need some feedback and examples on how to handle being
              > forced to sign things while in custody. If you sign you may
              < appear to some right or some defense.
              > hobot
              > >
              > > https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm
              > >
              > > No wonder the jailers told
              > > me when asking for a signature said, "Just sign it, don't put anything
              > > else on there."
              > >
            • Chuck East
              What about using V.C. or Vi Coactus, meaning signed under constraint. Wikipedia definition follows: Vi coactus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 4 5:47 PM
                What about using V.C. or Vi Coactus, meaning signed under constraint.
                Wikipedia definition follows:

                Vi coactus

                From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                Jump to: navigation, search

                Vi coactus is a Latin term, abbreviated as V.C., and means: 'under constraint'. It is used to indicate an agreement made under duress.

                An example of its usage is that of the Dutch 17th century statesman Cornelius de Witt, who was forced to sign the act for restoration of Stadholderate. After all the entreaties by his wife, though he signed the contract but only before adding V.C. to his signature. [1][dead link]



                --- On Mon, 4/1/13, Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:

                From: Legalbear <bear@...>
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 4:16 PM

                 

                https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm

                 

                Big thanks to Hobot for this amazing link. No wonder the jailers told me when asking for a signature said, “Just sign it, don’t put anything else on there.”

                 

                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)

                 

              • originalfrogfrmr
                ... I ve been saying it for years, based upon my years of experience in California where I have yet to see a proper arraignment, even in my own cases, even
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 5 2:45 AM
                  > It doesn't often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based on
                  > mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise.
                  > Several ago one of the Supreme Court justices (sorry I can't recall which
                  > one right now) got a little attention (at least from a few folks that
                  > aren't sound asleep) by saying that everyone in jail is there voluntarily.
                  > I'm sure some folks on this list have a better memory than I and may
                  > recall who said it.

                  I've been saying it for years, based upon my years of experience in
                  California where I have yet to see a proper arraignment, even in my own
                  cases, even when the judge has said,, "Oh, you want a PROPER
                  ARRAIGNMENT?", and then he goes on to fake one, and gets told, "close, but
                  no cigar!" and then they put it off for another two weeks, until 9
                  attempts (their seemingly maximum number) and then they dismiss for the
                  speedy trial rule or otherwise "dispose" of the problem case.

                  It's weird that in the nation in the world with the most prisoners, in the
                  state with the most prisoners, all those prisoners are there because they
                  were too lazy to read and think a little bit. They failed to have the
                  curiosity necessary to find out what steps their opponents had to take to
                  incarcerate or fine them, by reading the state constitution and Penal
                  Code. They failed to notice and act appropriately when their opponents
                  were unqualified to even speak in their presence in the courtroom! They
                  made admissions and confessions (the source of 90+% of convictions.) They
                  waive rights most times when asked to do so (beginning at the scene of the
                  "crime"). Mostly, they're morons, as Mark Dice so frequently proves in his
                  You-Tube videos.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7usCHnZ-8c

                  Regards,

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