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

Re: Two worlds - The Beast's and God's

Expand Messages
  • Herald Darryl-Bruce:
    Thank you Jim, Here is an interesting take on things, then. No marriage license. Child produced. Lies, conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice ensue (are
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 2, 2003
      Thank you Jim,
       
      Here is an interesting take on things, then.
       
      No marriage license. Child produced. Lies, conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice ensue (are ensuing). Mother 'registers' my daughter by birth certificate in the Province of Manitoba. I pushed to get my name on same, before I knew about these things. They did not comply, even though DNA test has been done.
       
      So, the way I see it, my daughter is in 'two worlds'. She is part 'legally the Beasts', on paper, and part mine, by virtue that I have NO joinder to the Beast government (corporate State). I fight for my rights as her father and the return of my 'issue', as one here put it.
       
      I wonder, if anti-Father (read 'Family Court') produces no visible results, aside from the lawsuit that I will be filing, I wonder if another venue, not in anti-Father Court,  DEMANDING the return of my PROPERTY, as per the Ten Commandments, would be in order.
       
      Please comment, as you are led. I appreciated your take below. Cogent and on target.
       
      darryl
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:41 PM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Needing some information

      A marriage license makes the state senior partner in the "marriage," and
      owner of all produce.  The birth certificate defines the produce.

      On Friday 01 August 2003 06:52 pm, Herald Darryl-Bruce: wrote:
      >
      > A couple of questions that immediately come to mind (and yes, I have first
      > hand experience with them): 1.. Jurisdiction:  Usually, their mandate only
      > applies to 'residents' of the Province (even when lower case, the
      > Interpretation Acts show that the lower case province means Province, which
      > is the corporation. So, they don't usually do this, but they would have to,
      > if challenged, I believe, prove that the child they are kidnapping is
      > actually a 'resident' of their corporation. A resident of their corporation
      > would be, in my opinion, an officer, employee, minister, etc. of said
      > corporation. Children and free men are not, therefore, residents.



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Jim Bailey
      ... Chris Hansen and Brad Barnhill have used a religion-based approach. Although I don t have their addresses, I m sure someone here on the list does. The
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 3, 2003
        On Saturday 02 August 2003 10:21 pm, Herald Darryl-Bruce: wrote:
        >
        > I wonder, if anti-Father (read 'Family Court') produces no visible results,
        > aside from the lawsuit that I will be filing, I wonder if another venue,
        > not in anti-Father Court, DEMANDING the return of my PROPERTY, as per the
        > Ten Commandments, would be in order.
        >
        Chris Hansen and Brad Barnhill have used a religion-based approach.
        Although I don't have their addresses, I'm sure someone here on the list does.
        The problem I see is that this approach requires a court that can be held to
        the Constitution; that's difficult to find/do. Perhaps it's a strategy for
        appeal, reversible error in the same way as other approaches. As must be
        obvious, I'm not knowledgeable about it. <8~)

        > Please comment, as you are led. I appreciated your take below. Cogent and
        > on target.
        >
        Where courts are concerned, my inclination has evolved toward an
        administrative attack to induce void judgment and errors reversible on
        appeal. Clips from a post by the Inhabitant show some of the reasons:

        *The Josephine Courts are statutory creatures of the law. Unfortunately for
        Raymond, these "courts" are not "courts". The Josephine County Courts are
        legislative agencies empowered for administrative review, or empanelled for
        judicial review of agency orders.

        *The Black Robed Administrator is a creature of the Statutory law.

        *Raymond should consider reading references such as the Rules of Court, and
        the State's Administrative procedures act.


        Another reason is that it's easier to get a judge to agree that an individual
        didn't follow regs than it is to get one(let alone a jury), for example, to
        agree you aren't subject to income tax.

        Rules of Court, and the State's Administrative Procedures Act are the 1st
        places to study.

        The strategy is to exploit their weaknesses. Cornforth, exposed to lawyers,
        says they are lazy and stupid. Lawyers who can't make it in private practice
        go into public employment(lazier?, stupider?).

        There are a number of areas that help determine strategy and tactics.
        Cornforth's competent witness and judgments void for lack of jurisdiction,
        Winterrowd's attack on "public officers" who have neither a timely oath of
        office nor a surety bond, even the UCC folk with their affidavit couched in
        negative terms, all contribute in one fashion or another.

        On another note:
        Some, e.g., Inhabitant(albeit cryptically), talk about unalienable rights and
        due process, and to move from the administrative tribunal to a due process
        venue. Perhaps how to get there will be in the Rules of Court and the State
        Administrative Procedures Act he mentions. ;~)

        A 3rd topic:
        The UCC folk who are having success accept the corporate STATE's operating
        in commerce. They use commercial documents to force the state into an
        untenable position and state minions into personal liability. When prepared
        for correctly, court is a formality.

        Jim

        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Jim Bailey
        > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:41 PM
        > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Needing some information
        >
        >
        > A marriage license makes the state senior partner in the "marriage," and
        > owner of all produce. The birth certificate defines the produce.
      • Legalbear
        ... From: Jim Bailey [mailto:jeb@runbox.com] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:08 PM To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Two
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 4, 2003

          -----Original Message-----
          From:
          Jim Bailey [mailto:jeb@...]
          Sent
          : Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:08 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Two worlds - The Beast's and God's

           

          On Saturday 02 August 2003 10:21 pm , Herald Darryl-Bruce: wrote:

          >

          > I wonder, if anti-Father (read 'Family Court') produces no visible results,

          > aside from the lawsuit that I will be filing, I wonder if another venue,

          > not in anti-Father Court,  DEMANDING the return of my PROPERTY, as per the

          > Ten Commandments, would be in order.

          >

          Chris Hansen and Brad Barnhill have used a religion-based approach.

          Although I don't have their addresses, I'm sure someone here on the list does.

           

          Christopher Hansen [sovereign@...]

           

          Chris can tell you Brad’s address.

           

          The problem I see is that this approach requires a court that can be held to

          the Constitution; that's difficult to find/do.  

           

          I’m pretty sure Herald’s in Canada.  Maybe the approach would be from a natural law/Law of Nations approach with reference to the comments made in Blackstone’s Commentaries having to do with Jah’s law.

           

          Perhaps it's a strategy for

          appeal, reversible error in the same way as other approaches.  As must be

          obvious, I'm not knowledgeable about it.  <8~)

           

          > Please comment, as you are led. I appreciated your take below. Cogent and

          > on target.

          >

          Where courts are concerned, my inclination has evolved toward an

          administrative attack to induce void judgment and errors reversible on

          appeal. 

           

          I’ve heard this type of comment before and it saddens me.  If you know something the court is doing that will void the judgment; you need to be putting that into the trial court so the court can do something about it by correcting its’ own error.  That would be a lot better than waking up on appeal and discovering what you thought was void wasn’t really at all and that you had a good issue but you waived it by not objecting in the trial court.

           

          Clips from a post by the Inhabitant show some of the reasons:

           

          I’m still waiting for the “Inhabitant” to say anything that makes sense.  It is my opinion that on the whole, he does not know what he is talking about!  He never supports what he says with authority.  He never has any stories about how someone he helped/counseled in his la-tee-da sing-song prose, has ever helped anyone win anything.  If I ever saw a post from him here, I would immediately ban him!

           

          *The Josephine Courts are statutory creatures of the law.  Unfortunately for

          Raymond, these "courts" are not "courts".  The Josephine County Courts are

          legislative agencies empowered for administrative review, or empanelled for

          judicial review of agency orders.

           

          Is a Josephine court something in Canada?

           

          *The Black Robed Administrator is a creature of the Statutory law.

           

          See what I’m talking about!!  In nearly every state, and probably Canada too, courts of general jurisdiction in which domestic proceedings occur, are created in the constitution of that state.  Hmmm, if those courts were created by the constitution; that would seem to make them constitutional courts and not statutory.

           

          *Raymond should consider reading references such as the Rules of Court, and

          the State's Administrative procedures act.

           

          Administrative agencies proceed under the rules of civil procedure unless a specific act spells out a procedure that specifically supercedes civil procedure.  Courts are responsible via judicial review, to make sure that those proceedings are in conformity with the constitution.  When the court conducts judicial review it does it under appellate rules.  Decisions made by the agency respecting the facts of the case stand and the only thing the court looks at in judicial review is the law.

           

          Another reason is that it's easier to get a judge to agree that an individual

          didn't follow regs than it is to get one(let alone a jury), for example, to

          agree you aren't subject to income tax.

           

          There is a hierarchy the court goes through when deciding any issue.  Constitutional issues are reached last.  See Ashwander v. TVA, S.Ct.  If the issue can be resolved on administrative procedure or a statute the court is supposed do that first.

           

          Rules of Court, and the State's Administrative Procedures Act are the 1st

          places to study.

           

          On another note:

          Some, e.g., Inhabitant(albeit cryptically), talk about unalienable rights and

          due process, and to move from the administrative tribunal to a due process

          venue.  Perhaps how to get there will be in the Rules of Court and the State

          Administrative Procedures Act he mentions. ;~)

           

          Venue has to do with place.  Defined:

           

          venue
          n. 1) the proper or most convenient location for trial of a case. Normally, the venue in a criminal case is the judicial district or county where the crime was committed. For civil cases, venue is usually the district or county which is the residence of a principal defendant, where a contract was executed or is to be performed, or where an accident took place. However, the parties may agree to a different venue for convenience (such as where most witnesses are located). Sometimes a lawsuit is filed in a district or county which is not the proper venue, and if the defendant promptly objects (asks for a change of venue), the court will order transfer of the case to the proper venue.

           

          So, this is an example of what I’m talking about.  Inhabitant is the only one in the whole world who ever thought of suggesting that there is a “place” where you can get due process.  The unfortunate thing about law is that in order to be successful you have to have some people skills.  Judges like to deal in things that are well settled; things they are familiar with.  There is room in law for new things; things that make more sense than what has gone before.  Rule 11 says that you can argue that the law should be changed.  However, things aren’t going to change by some pro per going in and saying, “The Inhabitant says I can move this to a ‘due process venue.’”  If the judge is humble, maybe he says, what are you talking about?  Then you’d say, I don’t know, I’ll ask the Inhabitant to brief us on that.  Can I have a continuance so I can do that?  In most cases, doing something like that would put the judge on his guard and your credibility would sink into the pits with him.  How are you going to get anybody, let alone a judge, to do anything for you when they don’t find you credible?  I think any testimony you give after doing something like that would also be suspect.

           

          A 3rd topic:

          The UCC folk who are having success accept the corporate STATE's operating

          in commerce.  They use commercial documents to force the state into an

          untenable position and state minions into personal liability.  When prepared

          for correctly, court is a formality.

           

          Jim, it would be nice if you would find and post here the success stories the UCC folk are having in court as a formality.  My experience is that they try to stay out of court because they don’t know what they are doing.  Court for them is more of a slaughter with the majority of them going to prison or jail for their UCC activities.  Instead of going to court as a plaintiff on their terms and causes of action; they go as criminal defendants under the most unfavorable of circumstances.  Bear

           

          Jim

           

           

          For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley, CO  80634-7849; 970-330-3883 fax 978-246-0798
          www.legal-research-video.com
          www.legalbears.com
          www.freedivorceforms.net
          www.irs-armory.com
          www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch

          To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

           

           

           

           

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

           

           

           

           

        • Jim Bailey
          On Monday 04 August 2003 06:58 pm, Legalbear wrote: ... This particular UCC approach is based on the STATE being a corporate entity, and subject to the same
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 10, 2003
            On Monday 04 August 2003 06:58 pm, Legalbear wrote:
            I wrote:
            > A 3rd topic:
            > The UCC folk who are having success accept the corporate STATE's
            > operating
            > in commerce. They use commercial documents to force the state into an
            > untenable position and state minions into personal liability. When
            > prepared
            > for correctly, court is a formality.
            >
            And Bear responded:
            > Jim, it would be nice if you would find and post here the success
            > stories the UCC folk are having in court as a formality. My experience
            > is that they try to stay out of court because they don't know what they
            > are doing. Court for them is more of a slaughter with the majority of
            > them going to prison or jail for their UCC activities. Instead of going
            > to court as a plaintiff on their terms and causes of action; they go as
            > criminal defendants under the most unfavorable of circumstances. Bear

            This particular UCC approach is based on the STATE being a
            corporate entity, and subject to the same rules as any other
            corporation, and a notary being an officer of the court.

            Under the UCC, there are 4 responses to a claim, 2 of which
            lead to dishonor(arguing about or ignoring the claim) and 2
            which honor the claim(acceptance [Yes I owe and will pay this
            claim] or conditional acceptance[I will pay this claim if you give
            me proof your claim is valid]).

            A "traffic" violation or other intrusion by a gov't agent is dealt
            with as a commercial claim, with a conditional acceptance sent
            to the agent involved within the UCC time constraints.

            A conditional acceptance is a promise to pay if specified conditions
            are met, e.g., Proof of claim that I in my private travels, am subject
            to statutes that regulate commercial entities. There are numerous
            points that can be raised, none of which the gov't wants in the open.
            Proof of claim that, should the agent pursue the claim after being
            given notice, that the agent would not be in violation of specific laws
            or statute.

            Under the UCC an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth; the conditional
            acceptance is accompanied by one couched in negative terms: "Affiant
            has seen no evidence that Affiant, in his private travels, is subject to the
            statutes that regulate commercial entities, and believes that none exists."
            The UCC requires point-by-point rebuttal. Using the negative form shifts
            the onus of proof to the claimant.

            When there is no response to the conditional acceptance and the affidavit,
            the notary who witnessed the signature of the affidavit generates a protest
            and notice of dishonor. By his silence, the claimant has acquiesced, and
            under the UCC the claim is extinguished. Thus, there is no controversy,
            therefor no court has jurisdiction.

            Should the agent or agency attempt to use the court, the affidavit is
            introduced as evidence of agreement between the parties and as testimony
            in the suit.

            I personally know one individual using this approach who was taken to Fed
            court by the IRS. Interestingly, when my friend filed a Judicial Notice with
            the court and the IRS attorney, the attorney not only refused to come to
            court, but refused calls from the court as to when he would appear. An IRS
            newbie was assigned as a substitute. The judge told the 2nd IRS attorney
            that, given the unrebutted affidavit, he didn't have much with which to work.
            He then dismissed the charges. As I understand it, this is the usual result,
            so there isn't much in the way of cites.

            This is a VERY sketchy overview. As in most approaches, the devil is in the
            details. DO NOT attempt this without a thorough understanding of the
            requirements and the ramifications thereof. I certainly don't consider
            myself knowledgeable enough to give thorough advice on specific problems.

            That said, I think the negatively-couched affidavit will be useful in any
            number of circumstances. Let's see these clowns justify their actions.

            jeb
          • Billy-Joe..Mauldin
            Legalbear: How do you explain 27 CFR 72.11?? Billy-Joe..Mauldin From: Jim Bailey To: Sent: Sunday, August
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 11, 2003
              Legalbear:

              How do you explain 27 CFR 72.11??

              Billy-Joe..Mauldin



              From: "Jim Bailey" <jeb@...>
              To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:08 AM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Two worlds - The Beast's and God's

              On Monday 04 August 2003 06:58 pm, Legalbear wrote:
              I wrote:
              A 3rd topic:
              The UCC folk who are having success accept the corporate STATE's
              operating
              in commerce. They use commercial documents to force the state into an
              untenable position and state minions into personal liability. When
              prepared
              for correctly, court is a formality.

              And Bear responded:
              Jim, it would be nice if you would find and post here the success
              stories the UCC folk are having in court as a formality. My experience
              is that they try to stay out of court because they don't know what they
              are doing. Court for them is more of a slaughter with the majority of
              them going to prison or jail for their UCC activities. Instead of going
              to court as a plaintiff on their terms and causes of action; they go as
              criminal defendants under the most unfavorable of circumstances. Bear

              This particular UCC approach is based on the STATE being a
              corporate entity, and subject to the same rules as any other
              corporation, and a notary being an officer of the court.

              Under the UCC, there are 4 responses to a claim, 2 of which
              lead to dishonor(arguing about or ignoring the claim) and 2
              which honor the claim(acceptance [Yes I owe and will pay this
              claim] or conditional acceptance[I will pay this claim if you give
              me proof your claim is valid]).

              A "traffic" violation or other intrusion by a gov't agent is dealt
              with as a commercial claim, with a conditional acceptance sent
              to the agent involved within the UCC time constraints.

              A conditional acceptance is a promise to pay if specified conditions
              are met, e.g., Proof of claim that I in my private travels, am subject
              to statutes that regulate commercial entities. There are numerous
              points that can be raised, none of which the gov't wants in the open.
              Proof of claim that, should the agent pursue the claim after being
              given notice, that the agent would not be in violation of specific laws
              or statute.

              Under the UCC an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth; the conditional
              acceptance is accompanied by one couched in negative terms: "Affiant
              has seen no evidence that Affiant, in his private travels, is subject to the
              statutes that regulate commercial entities, and believes that none exists."
              The UCC requires point-by-point rebuttal. Using the negative form shifts
              the onus of proof to the claimant.

              When there is no response to the conditional acceptance and the affidavit,
              the notary who witnessed the signature of the affidavit generates a protest
              and notice of dishonor. By his silence, the claimant has acquiesced, and
              under the UCC the claim is extinguished. Thus, there is no controversy,
              therefor no court has jurisdiction.

              Should the agent or agency attempt to use the court, the affidavit is
              introduced as evidence of agreement between the parties and as testimony
              in the suit.

              I personally know one individual using this approach who was taken to Fed
              court by the IRS. Interestingly, when my friend filed a Judicial Notice
              with
              the court and the IRS attorney, the attorney not only refused to come to
              court, but refused calls from the court as to when he would appear. An IRS
              newbie was assigned as a substitute. The judge told the 2nd IRS attorney
              that, given the unrebutted affidavit, he didn't have much with which to
              work.
              He then dismissed the charges. As I understand it, this is the usual
              result,
              so there isn't much in the way of cites.

              This is a VERY sketchy overview. As in most approaches, the devil is in the
              details. DO NOT attempt this without a thorough understanding of the
              requirements and the ramifications thereof. I certainly don't consider
              myself knowledgeable enough to give thorough advice on specific problems.

              That said, I think the negatively-couched affidavit will be useful in any
              number of circumstances. Let's see these clowns justify their actions.

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