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

defy citation with administrative procedures act

Expand Messages
  • slrrls2000
    Anybody have a more thorough details on this method of defending our right to traveling with vehicles on our streets; especially where the state has a
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 7 10:11 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Anybody have a more thorough details on this method of defending our right to traveling with vehicles on our streets; especially where the state has a department of transportation that brings the charges? This page lists the details of an administrative hearing.
      http://nooganomics.com/2013/03/to-travel-by-right-defy-citation-under-administrative-procedures-act/
    • Mike
      ... The thing about questions is that one must ask a specific question to get a specific answer. If one asks a general question, one gets a general answer.
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 7 5:48 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >Anybody have a more thorough details on this method...

        The thing about questions is that one must ask a specific question to get a specific answer. If one asks a general question, one gets a general answer.

        "All generalities are false. Including this one."

        This method? What method? I don't see a method. I see using the law to beat a presumption of law. So called "traffic court" is an "administrative tribunal" where Summary Judgement is the RULE, not the exception. The APA is the law used to identify the presumptions and defeat them. The first presumptions to be defeated are personam and subject matter jurisdiction. If a court lacks personam and subject matter jurisdiction there is no case.

        Once a person understands those two issues well enough to defeat them, then the next presumption to be defeated is venue. "Venue" is the "proper court".

        There is no silver bullet to kill the vampires and werewolves. 

        Telling a judge he/she does not have personam and subject matter jurisdiction and that his/her court is the improper venue for the action (step one) does not get one "brownie points" or a "get out of jail - free" card. Sometimes it pisses them off!

        Just as the article specifies - one must exhaust their administrative remedies. There are likely several "ways" to do this but all will likely share in common that (step two) one must write letters to the appropriate authorities. Step three is showing up at their administrative hearings and not incriminating oneself. Step four is Appealing the case and denying personam and subject matter jurisdiction and venue all over again. Eventually they figure out that there are easier fish to fry. If not, you have to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the US and they won't take your case if your homework has not been completed.

        The "test" for how much one is learning is how much time are one spending in jail. The "system" doesn't suddenly realize: "Oh! We are dealing with someone who knows the law!" and let one go. Nor will the "system" say: "Uh-oh! He/she is using THAT method, we better let him/her go!" 

        The "system" will put you in jail to find out how committed you are to finding freedom.

        That is the "method". 

        The details are a bit more complicated and it is like taking the red pill... once one takes the red pill there is no going back! "'Cause, Kansas is going bye-bye."

        The only problem with taking the bill pill is that the questions are never answered.

        "This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

        There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
        Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
        Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
        Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
        It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done."

        I don't blame Everybody, Somebody, Anybody or Nobody for my own ignorance so I ask a lot of questions internally. I also search on the internet once I have figured out the right question. When I started researching I was asking a lot of inaccurate questions. Compound that with searching on the internet and one gets a lot of dis-information along with correct information. That is a part of the process of learning... one has to learn to discern correct information from incorrect information. Learning about the APA is likely no different.

        Most of what I learned about the APA I learned from reading the files about the APA posted here:


        I don't know if you will have to join the group to read them.

        "No man can serve two masters."

        Lots of "pay-triot" gurus say: "Come follow me! I will show you the way!"

        One cannot serve the only Master worth serving without discernment. The lessons are what teaches the discernment.

        "Many men know many things, no one knows everything." Maxim of law. 

        I am still learning and seek out others who are seeking for themselves.

        As far as thorough goes... It took me a long time to write and edit this email (I am slow)... what are your expectations? I don't even know who you are...

        Michael
         
        Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

        From: slrrls2000 <slrrls2000@...>

        >snipped



      • hobot
        ... Mike, I was blocked trying to get an Administrative hearing on my simple no driver license case. Driver Control under Dept. of Revenue told me they only
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 8 1:10 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On 4/7/2013 7:48 PM, Mike wrote:
           
          >Anybody have a more thorough details on this method...

          The thing about questions is that one must ask a specific question to get a specific answer. If one asks a general question, one gets a general answer.

          Mike,  I was blocked trying to get an Administrative hearing on my
          simple no driver license case. Driver Control under Dept. of Revenue
          told me they only had jurisdiction and procedures to cover DWI type
          or medical suspensions or cancellations, no provision to hold a hearing on those
          that never applied for a driver license. In my case it might be good to get a letter
          of rejection stating Driver Control Dept. could not or would not provide an
          Administrative determination before appearing in a judicial court action.
          If you could post how you obtained Administrative due process to begin
          with it would be insightful.   hobot
           

        • Mike
          Greetings Hobot, ... They cannot give you an administrative hearing if they do not have jurisdiction. If you don t have a license then they do not have
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 8 11:10 PM
          View Source
          Greetings Hobot,

          >I was blocked trying to get an Administrative hearing on my simple no driver license case. . . told me they only had jurisdiction. . . no provision to hold a hearing on those that never applied for a driver license.

          They cannot give you an administrative hearing if they do not have jurisdiction. If you don't have a license then they do not have personam jurisdiction. You should have got the case dismissed. You probably didn't know that and they are not going to tell you. 

          You MUST deny personam jurisdiction if you are not a 14th Amendment (US) citizen. You also should deny "subject matter jurisdiction" when you understand that "all crimes are commercial" (cross reference 27 C.F.R. 72.11). In fact, most Appeals courts WILL NOT consider the issue if you have not denied it in a lower court. If you are a State National you would also deny venue because federal court is the ONLY venue available to take an Action against a State National. Cross reference 28 U.S.C. 1331 - 1333.

          Because...

          >Driver Control under Dept. of Revenue

          It is ALL about the money and the 14th Amendment... and they told you right there! You just didn't understand.

          14th Amendment Section 4 states:
          “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

          Did you think you pay those fines and penalties with money? No, you pay them with debt. The debt shall not be questioned.

          This issue also goes to why ALL the "courts" (the BANK) are administrative. Somebody has got to pay that debt, it may as well be the people who don't know their rights. So when they revised Title 28 back in 1948 they changed the courts from Art. III courts to Art. IV courts.

          I have typed this out before so it is easy for me to copy and paste. You should do the research yourself. In fact, I just revised them into a Request for Admissions so you will see them in that format:

          Please affirm that the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 443 was enacted into law on July 5, 1946.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the district and territorial courts of the United States over federal claims of trademark infringement, including false designations of origin, false and misleading descriptions of fact, and false and misleading representations of fact.  Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1121.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that Pub. L. Vol. XLIII, Sixty-eighth Congress, Session II, Chapter 883, February 12, 1925,(codified as 9 U.S.C.A § 1) states “‘Maritime transactions’, as herein defined, means charter parties, bills of lading of... supplies..., or any other matters in foreign commerce which, if the subject of controversy, would be embraced within admiralty jurisdiction; ‘commerce’, as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation...”
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that “charter” means “A basic document of law of a Municipal Corporation granted by the state, defining its rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of self-government.” See: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that the United States Statutes at Large, Volume 62  was signed into law by President Truman on June 25, 1948.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that Act completely re-structured the entire federal court system, after several years of committee work were needed to re-write numerous governing statutes.  See Title 28.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that the District Courts, whether federal or state, are not Article III Judicial Courts as a result of that restructuring.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See: American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling);  Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242-243 (1850); Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871);  Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873); Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877); Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878); The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879); Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);  O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); and Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).  
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that in Marathon supra, Justice Brennan for the plurality reasoned that Congress could create legislative courts without Article III protections in only three limited settings:  (1) territorial courts, (2) courts martial, and (3) courts deciding disputes involving public rights (i.e. 14th Amendment) that Congress created in the first instance.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that by treating the 50 States as federal Territories and by creating federal citizenship as a municipal franchise, Congress could effectively “broadcast” into those States a legislative court that routinely proceeds without Article III protections.  See the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
          RESPONSE:


          Please affirm that the District Courts, whether federal or state, are Article IV Administrative Tribunals designed for summary judgment for all federal  (A.K.A. 14th Amendment) citizens.
          RESPONSE:

          Here is some proof for you (also written before and copied and pasted here):

           This can be proven by looking at The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31, "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 - ELECTIVE FRANCHISE SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION".

          Title 42 concerns "civil rights" otherwise known as "legislative privileges" granted to former slaves.

          It is important to note the definition of "franchise":
          fran·chise 

          /ˈfranCHīz/
          Noun
          An authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities.

          The obvious key words here are "specified commercial activities".

           It would seem prudent to verify the definitions of other terms like "elective". "elective (Voluntary)" See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/elective

          So if one registers to vote one has "voluntarily submitted" and agreed to 
          carry out "specified commercial activities", like pay taxes. 

          “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a 
          form of government. . . . he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and 
          within their respective spheres must pay the penalties.” —U.S. v Cruikshank

          Does this "elective franchise" make a living (white) man a corporation and responsible for "Income Taxes" and other encumbrances of "this state" including a "driver's license"? The federal government seems to have usurped the de jure States through judicial and legislative fiat of the Fourteenth Amendment and other means.

          Here are several Maxims of Law that clarify the relationship when accepting a government benefit and the encumbrances they create.

          Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation. 
          Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. 
          No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. 
          He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage. 
          He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 
          He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden. 
          He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage. 
          A privilege is, as it were, a private law. 

          Additionally Title 42 Sec. 1973gg FINDINGS AND PURPOSES states:
          (a) Findings
          The Congress finds that -
          (1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
          (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the 
          exercise of that right; and
          (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct 
          and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and 
          disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial 
          minorities. (my! How the tables have turned! Now de jure State Nationals are denied the "right to vote"!)
          (b) Purposes
          The purposes of this subchapter are -
          (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who 
          register to vote in elections for Federal office;
          (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this 
          subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as 
          voters in elections for Federal office;
          (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
          (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

          So despite this legislatures claims that the purpose of that Public Law is to increase voter participation there is a deliberate exclusion of State Nationals, lawful State inhabitants who are not also federal citizens.

          This also indicates that there are NO occupied State Offices! They are vacant! "eligible citizens as 
          voters in elections for Federal office"

          The "state offices" that exist are federal franchises.

          There is clearly a nexus between voting and being required to have a driver's license: "Apply to Register to Vote You may apply to register to vote or change your voter registration name or address at any DMV office." See: http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/general/vote.asp

          There are also links between being a "US citizen", "driver's licenses" and serving on grand and petite juries.

          The conclusion that must be drawn is that when one registers to vote they declare under penalties of perjury that they are a "US citizen", that their political status is lowered to that of a slave and they have effectively exchanged their Natural Rights (including their Right to travel) for legislative privileges which may include the requirement of a "driver's license".

          When I thought I was a United States citizen I was thinking about being a Citizen of one of the 50 states not a "federal citizen" as defined by various regulations.

          This is fraud. Any contracts I entered into before I knew the terms and conditions of such contract are void ab initio.


          To show you how simple it is to prove that it is about money, look up your "state" offices: the legislature, the courts, traffic court, the agencies... they are all corporations. Corporations are not concerned with justice... they are concerned with "just us".


          Did you think attorneys work for you?

          >If you could post how you obtained Administrative due process to begin
          with it would be insightful.  

          It is a bit more complicated than that. Writing a letter to the  allegedly correct "authority" is the process, but you have to know what is going on, other wise you will have nothing to write about in your letter that will have any value to them. You have to begin to understand how Reality is, rather than believe what you were told Reality is. This goes for J and his letter to the House of Representatives requesting a "Justice Dept." investigation into judicial bias.

          J is mistakenly thinking "they don't know". I have attached a portion of the 1967 Congressional Record that details the fraud created by "Reconstruction". They know. They are waiting for Americans to know.

          You should also read Dyett v Turner: 


          Here is a statement (in part) set forth by President Andrew Johnson in regard to the post Civil 
          War (so-called “Civil War”) “Reconstruction Act” proposed by the RUMP Congress:

          “...Here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is based upon an accusation 
          so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one 
          of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were 
          excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most 
          ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large masses of men. It disfranchises them by 
          hundreds of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, 
          from the rank of freedom to the condition of slaves... That the measure proposed by this bill 
          does violate the Constitution in the particulars mentioned and in many other ways which I 
          forebear to enumerate is too clear to admit the least doubt...”

          If you don't know this, that is why you need attorney representation... because you are a child and ignorant.

          It is like you and J went into Burger King and demanded a Big Mac. It is just not possible. They cannot not tell you that you are in Burger King "so just have a Whopper", when you are busy demanding a Big Mac. Eventually they are going to get angry and call security to lock you up because you are delusional and don't know where you are and you are busy blaming them for your delusion. It is not their duty to correct your thinking, it is your duty to correct your thinking.

          YOU are the authority. They are waiting for you to tell them what to do but they know that they don't have to admit anything, they know they can mislead you because most of the time people will just take the easy way out and pony up the money and pay them off. It is called extortion and they have been getting away with it for years. Even when you DO have "it" figured out they are not going to admit anything because then you can prosecute them. You can be quite sure they don't want that. So the letter that has value to "them" is telling the Attorney General of your alleged "state" (shhhh... don't tell anyone.... your State is vacant!) that you have done the research and the "gig is up". You know about the fraud and you have had enough. You want the Attorney General to prosecute the criminals! Who are the criminals? Everyone who is a U.S. citizen. Read Section 4 again (above).

          One more important distinction:

          Remember LAWFUL (substance of law) is not the same as LEGAL (form of law). 

          The opposite is also true: UNLAWFUL is not the same as ILLEGAL. 

          Something can be LAWFUL and still be ILLEGAL but something UNLAWFUL can NEVER BE LEGAL.

          i.e. The use and possession of cannabis is ALWAYS lawful because you cannot make Nature unlawful, but it is illegal because some men think it would be harmful.

          "Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms." (a quote, see below)

          You can LAWFULLY exercise your Right to travel WITHOUT a license and become subject to UNLAWFUL ARREST AND SEIZURE because of the construction of statutes and the training of "law enforcement officers". Cross reference 18 U.S.C. § 241-242.

          The "state" can "legally" commit fraud through the construction of statutes and the training (or lack thereof) of "law enforcement officers" and by failing to inform applicants for "driver's licenses" 
          of the law but it will NEVER BE LAWFUL.

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

          A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.


          37 AM Jur 2nd  § 8 states:
          "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn Contracts, Documents, and even Judgments."

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lawful

          "Licit; legally warranted or authorized.
          The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegalapproaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.
          The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawful is not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraudwould be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result,legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process."

          West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

          So the foregoing should make it pretty clear what needs to be done if you want to free yourself from the "system".

          You should be aware I do not accept ANY "benefits" from government. I have no bank accounts, no residence, no employment, no welfare, no food stamps, no "Social Security", and I am NOT registered to vote.

          This way they have no jurisdiction over me.

          I hope this answers your inquiry.
        • Troy Duwayne, Barclay
          Hobot, There is NO due process in the phantom law rules (i.e. administrative law). Mike covered this point  very well. One has to ask what attaches one to
          Message 5 of 11 , Apr 9 7:26 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hobot,
            There is NO due process in the phantom law rules (i.e. administrative law). Mike covered this point  very well. One has to ask what "attaches" one to that fiction of phantom law? Mike covered that also in an excellent way. Status in law determines jurisdiction.  Just google phantom law rules.

            It appears you do not want to address the WHY you are where you are, in that phantom law system, but you want "the administrative law" to play fair and on your terms, but, the fact is it does NOT and will NOT do that. You apparently have something like an SSN that attaches you to their jurisdiction. In the eyes of the law the term is hypocrite when one wants it both ways. One wants the benefit without paying the cost.
            Troy
          • originalfrogfrmr
            ... I always heard and believed (due to the results) that one starts with an administrative hearing because of the need to exhaust administrative remedies and
            Message 6 of 11 , Apr 9 11:41 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > It appears you do not want to address the WHY you are where you are, in
              > that phantom law system, but you want "the administrative law" to play
              > fair and on your terms, but, the fact is it does NOT and will NOT do that.
              > You apparently have something like an SSN that attaches you to their
              > jurisdiction. In the eyes of the law the term is hypocrite when one wants
              > it both ways. One wants the benefit without paying the cost.

              I always heard and believed (due to the results) that one starts with an
              administrative hearing because of the need to exhaust administrative
              remedies and because that is when and how you prove you are a natural man
              and not a corporation. I had also heard that when one goes into court as
              defendant, it is assumed that one lost at the administrative level and is
              appealing that decision.

              I had heard from Walt Mann III that in order to strike terror in one's
              adversaries, one should always make a demand for "a formal docketed
              administrative hearing on the record". When I tried that, they decided to
              forget the whole problem at hand and see things my way.

              Regards,

              FF
            • Troy Duwayne, Barclay
              Quote from Phantom Law Rules at page 36:   “The purported passage of these war amendments has led us, this day, to look at a seven-point summary of what is
              Message 7 of 11 , Apr 10 6:32 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Quote
                from Phantom Law Rules at page 36:
                 
                “The
                purported passage of these war amendments
                has
                led us, this day, to look at a seven-point summary of
                what
                is espoused by the administrative Supreme Court
                of
                the United States as the Ashwander Doctrine rules.
                This
                administrative doctrine should be studied carefully
                to
                understand where the Supreme Court has been coming
                from
                since the Civil War era. These rules are self-denying
                ordinances
                set forth in a concurring opinion in 1936,
                 Ashwander
                v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297
                U.S.288:
                 
                1.
                The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality
                in
                a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding.
                2.
                The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional
                law
                in advance of the necessity for deciding
                it.
                3.
                The Court will not formulate a rule of law broader
                than
                the facts of the case require.
                4.
                If possible, the Court will dispose of a case on non-constitutional
                grounds.
                5.
                The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute
                on
                complaint of one who fails to show injury to
                person
                or property.
                6.
                The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality
                of
                a statute at the instance of one who has accepted
                its
                benefits.
                7.
                Whenever possible, statutes will be construed so
                as
                to avoid a constitutional issue (Alpheus Mason
                and
                Donald Stephenson, American Constitutional
                Law: Introductory Essays and
                Selected Cases, 9th  ed., 1990, p. 19)."

                Regards,
                Troy



                I always heard and believed (due to the results) that one starts with an
                administrative hearing because of the need to exhaust administrative
                remedies and because that is when and how you prove you are a natural man
                and not a corporation. I had also heard that when one goes into court as
                defendant, it is assumed that one lost at the administrative level and is
                appealing that decision.
              • Troy Duwayne, Barclay
                  Hi FF,   I say:  I am not trying to find fault, just attempting to give a little  support. I am speaking from my past experiences chasing the phantom
                Message 8 of 11 , Apr 10 11:54 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  Hi FF,
                   
                  I say:  I am not trying to find fault, just attempting to give a little  support. I am speaking from my past experiences chasing the phantom called “administrative law.” And, for sure, I for one do not have all the answers.
                   
                   You said:  “I always heard and believed (due to the results) that one starts with an
                  administrative hearing because of the need to exhaust administrative
                  remedies and because that is when and how you prove you are a natural man
                  and not a corporation. I had also heard that when one goes into court as
                  defendant, it is assumed that one lost at the administrative level and is
                  appealing that decision.”
                   
                   I say: If I had followed administrative law rules of court, I would have been jailed for longer than 20 days. If you have any ties to their system, like Ashwander Doctrine rules # 6 your status defeats you in any court setting. For 20 days in Dec. 1991, the IRS tried their best to get me back in their system with offers and tricks to take the SSN back. When they determined that I was not going “to come around” they kicked me out of jail and after that one more try to serve papers on me.  I have not heard a word from them since February 1992. Not even a postcard. Status matters and if one has any kind of attachment to the phantom law rules system, he has voluntarily forfeited all rights, constitutional or common law there are. I my opinion you will never reach an Article III court, ever, via appeals, writ of errors or any pleading of that ilk. Because, and I witnessed this first hand in a willful failure to file case where it was brought out that he was receiving some small benefits from the VA, therefore he was considered a hypocrite in the eyes of “the law” and they found him guilty and gave him 5 years. That was in 1982. The very first day, just after the trial started, his lawyer for his defense was questioning an IRS agent on the stand, asking him questions about the constitution and him knowing it, and the judge slammed his notebook down on the podium, and leaned over and pointed his finger at the lawyer and said, “Counselor, I have you know that everybody studies the constitution in the 5th grade on the 4th day, and we are not going to talk about the constitution anymore in my court room.” The next day the judge corrected the record by saying that he did not know for sure the constitution was studied on the 4th day or not but it was studied in the 5th grade. If one’s status is correct, and kept correct, then he is “in law” at common law and phantom law rules cannot attach any of the Aswander rules to him/her. 

                  You said: “I had heard from Walt Mann III that in order to strike terror in one's
                  adversaries, one should always make a demand for "a formal docketed
                  administrative hearing on the record". When I tried that, they decided to
                  forget the whole problem at hand and see things my way.”
                   
                  I say: I have never heard of Walt Mann III that I remember and I am nearly 70 years young. You may strike terror in a few sometimes but they can change the rules and direction in the middle of the stream.  In administrative situations they win in the long run, because they know what attachment(s) one has to their phantom law system, and if need be, it is their “ace in the hole” and they will use it.  We have been duped, deceived and tricked since the so-called civil war amendments and this so-called administrative law. They, the powers that be, know that probably 95% of the current population have such attachment(s) of some kind or form as they pass out SSN at birth now. Administrative law is fairly new invention for a tyrannical kind of so-called law that is really and truly a true phantom. On page 7 of Phantom Law Rules it states: “There is civil law, common law, criminal law, natural law, the law of nations, public law, private law, canon law, martial law, municipal law, foreign law, positive law, statute law, written law, unwritten law, international law, merchant law, and maritime law. But no where, no where, does this prominent 1859 (Bouvier’s) law dictionary mention anything, whatsoever, about administrative law.”
                   
                  For Freedom and Liberty ,
                  Troy


                  From: "frogfrmr@..." <frogfrmr@...>
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:41 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] defy citation with administrative procedures act

                   
                  > It appears you do not want to address the WHY you are where you are, in
                  > that phantom law system, but you want "the administrative law" to play
                  > fair and on your terms, but, the fact is it does NOT and will NOT do that.
                  > You apparently have something like an SSN that attaches you to their
                  > jurisdiction. In the eyes of the law the term is hypocrite when one wants
                  > it both ways. One wants the benefit without paying the cost.

                  I always heard and believed (due to the results) that one starts with an
                  administrative hearing because of the need to exhaust administrative
                  remedies and because that is when and how you prove you are a natural man
                  and not a corporation. I had also heard that when one goes into court as
                  defendant, it is assumed that one lost at the administrative level and is
                  appealing that decision.

                  I had heard from Walt Mann III that in order to strike terror in one's
                  adversaries, one should always make a demand for "a formal docketed
                  administrative hearing on the record". When I tried that, they decided to
                  forget the whole problem at hand and see things my way.

                  Regards,

                  FF



                • hobot
                  ... Troy I have authenticated sealed full proof ID from US Sec. of State that I have no legal presence in United States, no SSN [as I do not qualify for SSN]
                  Message 9 of 11 , Apr 10 10:12 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 4/9/2013 9:26 AM, Troy Duwayne, Barclay wrote:
                     
                    Hobot,
                    There is NO due process in the phantom law rules (i.e. administrative law). Mike covered this point  very well. One has to ask what "attaches" one to that fiction of phantom law? Mike covered that also in an excellent way. Status in law determines jurisdiction.  Just google phantom law rules.

                    It appears you do not want to address the WHY you are where you are, in that phantom law system, but you want "the administrative law" to play fair and on your terms, but, the fact is it does NOT and will NOT do that. You apparently have something like an SSN that attaches you to their jurisdiction. In the eyes of the law the term is hypocrite when one wants it both ways. One wants the benefit without paying the cost.
                    Troy

                    Troy I have authenticated sealed full proof ID from US Sec. of State that
                    I have no legal presence in United States, no SSN [as I do not qualify
                    for SSN]  nor as a resident or any nexus "in this state"   You are making
                    assumptions that do not apply to me. I have nothing to rescind or cancel
                    that implies I'm under some Administrative or Statutory jurisdiction. i just
                    need a forum that can hear someone of my standing and nature to get
                    some remedy for folks like me to travel free.  I've got banking and IRS and my
                    professional license all licked by simple form driven Adm. procedure,
                    so its worked out great for me where it really matters.  Traffic cases
                    are small potato's that's a game hobby to learn procedures and maybe
                    get my final solution via a Federal level declaratory judgement case.

                    Mike's post has vital data in it but too long to reply too w/o breaking in up
                    in bite sizes point by point, but will get around too it.  I am seeking how
                    to make my simple no driver license case and my standing a Federal
                    issue.to counter claim to put me on the offensive and stay the lower state
                    courts til its heard first.  hobot


                     

                     


                  • Troy Duwayne, Barclay
                    Hobot,  Thanks! It sounds good and my best to you in your endeavors.   I just have an awfully hard time wrapping my mind around trusting this fairly new
                    Message 10 of 11 , Apr 11 3:22 AM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hobot, 
                      Thanks! It sounds
                      good and my best to you in your endeavors.
                       
                      I just
                      have an awfully hard time wrapping my mind around trusting this fairly new government created Administrative jurisdiction and expecting such administrative
                      procedures act and its outcomes by said government's 4th branch invention to be honest,
                      fair and unbiased towards anything of its creation and governance.
                       
                      I was
                      born in Texas and live in Texas and I want to maintain a "lawful"
                      status in law which I consider to be different than just "legal". I
                      think that an offence is really needed, as a lot of time is spent on defense
                      and trying to keep this phantom law rules system at bay and off one's back. Thanks again for your clarification. Please
                      excuse and forgive my assumptions?
                      Blessings,
                      Troy
                    • originalfrogfrmr
                      ... I appreciate that! I sure don t have all the answers either. You might have noticed I stick to a few topics. It s mainly because they re all I personally
                      Message 11 of 11 , Apr 11 5:21 AM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > I say:  I am not trying to find fault, just attempting
                        > to give a little support. I am speaking from my past
                        > experiences chasing the phantom called administrative law.
                        > And, for sure, I for one do not have all the answers.

                        I appreciate that! I sure don't have all the answers either. You might
                        have noticed I stick to a few topics. It's mainly because they're all I
                        personally need to wend my way down life's path so far. I like
                        specialized tools for the job. I like the way a good tool makes a job
                        faster and easier so I collect information as tools just like hand tools.

                        > You said: I always heard and believed (due
                        > to the results) that one starts with an
                        > administrative hearing because of the need to
                        > exhaust administrative
                        > remedies and because that is when and how you
                        > prove you are a natural man
                        > and not a corporation. I had also heard that
                        > when one goes into court as
                        > defendant, it is assumed that one lost at the
                        > administrative level and is
                        > appealing that decision.
                         
                        > I say: If
                        > I had followed administrative law rules of court, I would have
                        > been jailed for longer than 20 days. If you have any ties to
                        > their system, like Ashwander Doctrine rules # 6 your status
                        > defeats you in any court setting.

                        For those still unfamiliar, #6 is:

                        6.The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the
                        instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

                        FF sez: If I pee on your leg, have you availed yourself of the benefit of
                        my specially formulated moisture enhancement??

                        I like how you made a choice between following administrative rules and
                        not following them. It shows you are thinking for yourself. I too have
                        always heard, "rules are made to be broken". I like that you have a way
                        to insert a first step in front of the one they assume you'd take.

                        We (our local trouble-makers) took note of #6 when we went through George
                        Gordon's course. It's one that makes one think and make life changing
                        adjustments to how one thinks and speaks and acts. It separates you from
                        the herd. And from the lemmings. Makes you wary of "benefits".

                        Somewhere on this list I told the story of my administrative hearing at
                        the DMV which was fun and very instructive in my quest for understanding
                        this weird world I'm in. It's funny how when you get into this stuff, you
                        encounter things that you have a hard time believing. Right now, I don't
                        think ANYONE is doing the job they were hired to do, ANYWHERE!! But back
                        then, I was more naive than I am now. I still thought I'd reach the
                        people in charge who could reason and act appropriately.

                        Today, my step one is to let the subject incriminate themselves out of
                        their own mouths and then by my own decree disqualify them from making any
                        official determinations or taking any official actions, leaving what they
                        were attempting to accomplish with me to their superiors who, if I get
                        within range, get a report on their demonstrated inadequacies and a
                        warning notice from me that I may proceed in that direction with
                        additional contestants if further stimulated. I prefer disengagement with
                        no diminishment of my own rights. I understand that they may know no
                        better way to live and may have to follow orders and struggle for their
                        paycheck...

                        Reminds me of an old TV show I saw when I was a kid:
                        Ramar of the Jungle to his side-kick Howard as he blasts a spear-chucker
                        with his elephant gun: "The poor devils..."

                        > For 20 days in Dec. 1991, the IRS tried their best to get me
                        > back in their system
                        > with offers and tricks to take the SSN back.

                        That confirms a lot I've believed about that number. Many say that there's
                        no way to get rid of it. But there sure is a way not to claim it or use
                        it! There's a way not to fall for the trick question, "what is YOUR
                        Social Security Number?"

                        > When they determined that I was not going to come
                        > around they kicked me out of jail

                        I have a friend who liked to get kicked out of jail. He was kicked out
                        several times. I haven't been arrested since I was 18 (on a false
                        charge).

                        > Status matters and if one has any kind of attachment
                        > to the phantom law rules
                        > system, he has voluntarily forfeited all rights,
                        > constitutional or common law there are.

                        The truth is harsh. How do you get more people to realize that fact?

                        > Because, and I
                        > witnessed this first hand in a willful failure to file
                        > case where it was brought out that he was receiving
                        > some small benefits from the VA, therefore he was considered
                        > a hypocrite in the eyes of the law and they found him
                        > guilty and gave him 5 years.

                        Many people prove themselves hypocrites when they attempt to use the money
                        issue.

                        > I say: I have never heard of Walt Mann III that I
                        > remember and I am nearly 70 years young.

                        They threw him down the memory hole.

                        > You may strike terror in a few sometimes but they can
                        > change the rules and direction in the middle of
                        > the stream. In administrative situations
                        > they win in the long run, because they know what attachment(s)
                        > one has to their phantom law system, and if need be, it
                        > is their ace in the hole and they will use it.

                        They lost in mine, badly. To me, they seemed vulnerable, weak, unprepared.

                        > We have been duped, deceived and tricked since the
                        > so-called civil war amendments and this
                        > so-called administrative law. They, the powers that be,
                        > know that probably 95% of the current population have
                        > such attachment(s) of some kind or form as they pass out
                        > SSN at birth now. Administrative law is fairly new invention
                        > for a tyrannical kind of so-called law that is really and
                        > truly a true phantom. On page 7 of Phantom Law Rules it states:
                        > There is civil law, common law, criminal law, natural law,
                        > the law of nations, public law, private law, canon law,
                        > martial law, municipal law, foreign law, positive
                        > law, statute law, written law, unwritten law,
                        > international law, merchant law, and maritime law. But
                        > nowhere, nowhere, does this prominent 1859 (Bouvier's) law
                        > dictionary mention anything, whatsoever, about administrative law.

                        Maybe, if they are able to get a qualified set of players, that would be
                        the first matter of business...

                        So, if you don't play in administrative hearings, where and how do you
                        communicate with these people to get them to leave you alone?

                        Regards,

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