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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] defy citation with administrative procedures act

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Apr 8, 2013
    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 2 of 11 , Apr 9, 2013
    • 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 3 of 11 , Apr 9, 2013
      • 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 4 of 11 , Apr 10, 2013
        • 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 5 of 11 , Apr 10, 2013
          • 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 6 of 11 , Apr 10, 2013
            • 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 7 of 11 , Apr 11, 2013
              • 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 8 of 11 , Apr 11, 2013
                • 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.