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

Fw: 1st Amend Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Common Misconceptions. Re: [ed44] Re: Daum law vs. law vs. legalities

Expand Messages
  • Ed
    ... From: Ed To: ed44@yahoogroups.com Subject: 1st Amend Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Common Misconceptions. Re: [ed44] Re: Daum law vs. law
    Message 1 of 1 , May 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ed
      Subject: 1st Amend Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Common Misconceptions. Re: [ed44] Re: Daum law vs. law vs. legalities

      Thanks Daniel for clarifying your views. My questions and comments are below:
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 2:09 AM
      Subject: Re: [ed44] Re: Daum law vs. law vs. legalities

      Daniel, How can a mere servant dismiss a claim of a master?
       
          [Just like the government officials in Daum's case did--they dismiss it.  A federal
      statute allows a court to dismiss a case where no filing fees are paid or no in forma
      pauperis status is granted. 
      --------------------------------
      Ed44 asks:
       
      1) What 'Statute'? 
       
      2) Does not the Constitution trump the Statute? What about the Right to "Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances?
       
      Ed's Comments:
       
      A very common misconception is that the 1st amendment allows us to gather signatures to appeal to 'God' (government) for redress, or to Petition for God (government) to intervene to redress a grievance we have with a fellow Human Being and/or Citizen. WRONG. In my recent review of the establishment of our Nation it is VERY clear they were talking about COURT (an Institution - NOT a human being in a Black Robe) as a means to Redress Wrongs committed against one of us, one of 'We the People', BY GOVERNMENT (this Includes the Agents / Actors of Government).
       
      It is also very clear that our Judicial Branch, and the Officials in our Judicial Branch, do NOT have 'authority', and Congress many NOT grant them 'authority' to create a statute, or Rule, to dismiss our First Amendment Right. READ THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT!!!! "CONGRESS MAY PASS NO LAW....."
       
      'They' have NO discretion to either 1) demand a filing fee, or 2) play God and claim our IFP does not meet 'Their' (the Judicial or Court Official, or collective of Court Officials, or Congress's) standards of who, and who is not, a pauper. Their 'standard' is inherently arbitrary and capricious.
       
      --------------------
       
      They also have the authority to dismiss a case because
      the complaint fails to state a claim, and paying filing fees does not give the judge
      the authority to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a cause of action.  Daum is
      trying unsuccessfully to get around the filing requirements, and he will never go anywhere
      until he pays the filing fee or requests to proceed in forma pauperis.  He is kicking in the
      wind, so it is great that he acknowledges that it may take years for his case to go anywhere.]
       
      Ed44 asks:
       
      1) What 'authority'? If they have no 'authority' (jurisdiction and/or discretion) then there is nothing to 'get around'.
       
      However - I do agree he might ask for IFP status and then challenge their jurisdiction and discretion (aka 'authority') to make a determination of whether or not he meets "their" standard. Which, by the way, is NOT clearly established anyplace that I have found. Thus it is 'arbitrary and capricious'.
       
      I do, however, understand that there is 'Judge made law', flowing down from the dictators who have taken control of our U.S. Supreme Courthouse, that says those who file IFP may be deprived of their Right to Equal Protection of the Law with their 'Petition for Redress of Grievances' subjected to a different standard.
       

      What are your views as to a master-servant relationship that seem to
      exist under the constitution for the united States of America?????
       
          [A police officer is my servant, but that doesn't mean he can't arrest me because I order
      him not to arrest me.
       
        A judge is my servant, yet he has the authority to dismiss
      a case that doesn't comply with the filing requirements
       
      ------------------------
      Ed44 says:
       
      I think you mean a Petition (aka 'case') that does not satisfy the Notice, Service, Summons requirements.
       
       
      The judge has the authority to enter a proper judgment, even though I order the judge not to enter the proper judgment.] 

      Ed44 says:
       
      'I' do not "order" the Judge to 'do' or 'not do' anything. 'I' simply tell the Judge what 1) the Supreme of the 'supreme Law of the Land' (Declaration of Law, aka "God's Law", aka "Declaration of Independence"), 2) the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Acts of Congress (aka "supreme Law of the Land") and 3) 'We the People' have Ordered and MANDATED, through our Declaration of Law (aka "Unanimous Declaration of Independence", aka "God's Law"), through 1) our US Constitution, through 2) our State Constitution applicable to the State of Residence of the Citizen holding Dual Soveriegnty (aka dual citizenship), and through 3) our Representatives in Congress and through 4) our State Legislature, have established as LAW that the Official, also known as a Court Officer, also known as a Judge or Justice or Clerk, MUST comply with under Penalty of Law. 'Their' so-called 'common law' (case law, judicial precedent) has NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, 'AUTHORITY' (jurisdiction and discretion)  IN "AMERICAN jurisprudence".
       
      Admittedly our Nation's government has become Lawless and 'they' no longer feel compelled to comply with the Law - ANY Law.

      A lot of states don't require court assistance or summons until it is
      clear that the defendant is not going to answer the claim or
      complaint served to them.
       
          [We are not talking about what some states do.  Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      requires a summons and complaint to be served together, and the law requires a court clerk
      to issue a summons if it is in proper form and the filing fees have been paid; the complaint can
      be "fatally defective," yet the clerk must issue the summons; Rule 4 specifically requires a summons
      to be served "together" with the complaint. If the clerk never issues a summons, the defendant is not
      required to answer the complaint because Rule 4 requires *both* a proper summons and complaint to
      be served "together."  Even if the summons is issued, it can still be defective and the defendant can challenge
      the defective summons with a Rule 12 motion for "insufficient process."  If the summons is not defective but
      it is not correctly served, the defendant can also challenge the defective service with a Rule 12 motion to
      dismiss for "insufficient service of process."] 

      But now, Is there any need for summons if defendant defaults on
      plaintiff's claim served upon him?
       
          [Yes there is a need in a federal case because federal law requires more than service of a complaint.  The law also
      requires a summons to issue and be served "together" with the complaint.  If the filing fee is paid or in forma pauperis status
      is granted and the summons is in proper form, the court clerk has no discretion to refuse to issue a summons.]

      If the servants don't do their job can't the Master of the servant do
      the job required of the servant?
       
          [It depends on the law and facts concerning the specific situation.  If a clerk refuses to issue a summons, the plaintiff still can't legally sign and issue a summons, or just decide to serve the complaint without a summons, and expect the case to go anywhere.  Service of the complaint without the summons is ineffective.]
       
      Ed44 says: Yes - Proper Service, Notice, Summons of the Defendant Party is required.
       
      Of course - If the Defendant Party is the US government, or a State government, this should be very easy to satisfy. At present I do not recall the 'Rules' applicable to our National Citizenship jurisdiction (aka US District Court). But I believe it is NOT required that I pay tribute to the US Marshal to service notice & summon to the defendant party. Also - as the US District Court is a part of our US government the filing should satisfy notice requirement. The Clerk should automatically forward to appropriate servants charged with duty to respond whenever a 'case' (aka 'Petition for Redress of Grievance') is filed naming the US Government, a sub-unit of this government, a State government or subunit thereof, or Public Servant in their Official Capacity, is named as a defendant.
       
      I know that I, as a Texas State Citizen, may utilize MY court in MY State, and satisfy the Service, Notice, Summons requirements by a number of inexpensive means. Anyone over the age of 18 can perform service and sign the affidavit for return of service. I can also use alternative notice if the party defendant cannot be found. I think it is Rule 103, 106, or 108 that provides notice via publication. So there are many inexpensive, or free, ways to perfect service.
       
      Respectfully,
       
      Ed
      www.informed.org
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 5/15/2004

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