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

Jail Mail

Expand Messages
  • william moore
    Investigation Requiring Information from Lou Blanas The below was e-mailed on October 4, 2004 to Lou Blanas at: sheriff@sacsheriff.com with a copy e-mailed to
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Investigation Requiring Information from Lou Blanas

      The below was e-mailed on October 4, 2004 to Lou Blanas at: sheriff@...
      with a copy e-mailed to Judge, Frank C. Damrell, Junior, at: mprice@...

      Investigation Requiring Information from Lou Blanas:

      This request is being made as part of an investigation prior to turning the information and this investigation over to the United States Postal Inspection Service:

      It has come to my attention that someone under the direction of Lou Blanas, d.b.a. Sacramento County Sheriff is preventing: :Walter-Allen :Thompson from receiving his mail which appears to be in violation of:

      Title 18 United States Code Section 3: Accessory after the fact: “Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact: Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years:

      And Title 18 United States Code Section 4: Misprision of Felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both

      And Title 18 United States Code Section 1702. Obstruction of correspondence: Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both:

      According to United States Postal Service you are in receipt of the following three items and this investigation will come to a close when I, :William-Joseph :Moore, am in receipt of some assurance that :Walter-Allen :Thompson is in receipt of the following three items:

      :All subject to :Walter-Allen :Thompson’s and My immediate receipt of your statement of claim, in writing, and your proof of claim, in writing, to the contrary.

      Item Number One:

      United States Postal Service Track & Confirm:

      Current Status:

      You entered 7004 1160 0001 4304 1260:
      Your item was delivered at 12:37 pm on September 21, 2004 in SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.

      This item was addressed as shown below:

      From:
      William-Joseph :Moore.
      c/o General Post
      Clovis, city
      California, state Republic
      Non-Commercial Situs

      To:
      c/o Watch Commander
      For: :Walter-Allen :Thompson.
      c/o X 4028467
      c/o 5 West -1-01
      c/o 651 “I” St.
      Sacramento, California [95814]

      Item Number Two:

      United States Postal Service Track & Confirm:

      Current Status:

      You entered 7003 1010 0002 8848 4257
      Your item was delivered at 1:11 pm on September 28, 2004 in SACRAMENTO, CA 95814:

      This item was addressed as shown below:

      From:
      William-Joseph :Moore.
      c/o General Post
      Clovis, city
      California, state Republic
      Non-Commercial Situs

      To:
      c/o Watch Commander
      For: :Walter-Allen :Thompson.
      c/o X 4028467
      c/o 5 West -1-01
      c/o 651 “I” St.
      Sacramento, California [95814]

      Item Number Three:

      United States Postal Service Track & Confirm:

      Current Status:

      You entered 7003 1010 0002 8848 4301:

      Your item was delivered at 11:25 am on October 02, 2004 in SACRAMENTO, CA 95814:

      This item was addressed as shown below:

      From:
      :William-Joseph :Moore.
      c/o General Post
      Clovis, city
      California, state Republic
      Non-Commercial Situs

      To:
      c/o Lou Blanas, d.b.a. Sacramento County Sheriff
      For: :Walter-Allen :Thompson.
      c/o X 4028467
      c/o 5 West -1-01
      c/o 651 “I” St.
      Sacramento, California [95814]
      c/o Sacramento Sheriff's Department
      c/o 711 “G” Street
      Sacramento, California [95814]

      Item Number Three appears as shown below:

      September 30, 2004

      Dear Al:

      Hopefully you are holding up well under the stress of what has happened to you.

      It is hard to believe that right here in America a guy who calls himself an American, like Lou Blanas, is still keeping you in custody, he has been participating in your being held captive well into the second month now, and regardless of what, the Judge, Frank C. Damrell, Junior said on the record at the Hearing on September 17, 2004, it is my understanding that you still do not have access to a pen and paper, or a law library, or Counsel of your choice or even access to the mail that we send you:

      For the benefit of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department employee who will probably prevent Al from getting this Letter as well as anyone else reading this document: Al is being held on a bogus Contempt Charge resulting from a bogus Court Order resulting from a bogus Complaint for Permanent Injunction filed by a US Attorney, who files bogus cases on the bogus requests of a bogus US agency who failed to exhaust Administrative Remedy prior to the bogus US agency requesting that the bogus US Attorney file the bogus Complaint for Permanent Injunction: Your continued participation in the false imprisonment of :Walter-Allen :Thompson puts you in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 3: Accessory after the fact: “Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact: Except as otherwise expre
      ssly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years: And Title 18 United States Codes Section 4: Misprision of Felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both: All subject to :Walter-Allen :Thompson’s immediate receipt of Judge, Frank C. Damrell, Junior’s, Statement of Claim, in writing, and Judge, Frank C. Damrell, Junior’s Proof of Claim, i
      n writing, to the contrary.

      This serves as Notice to any Government Agent and/or anyone acting as a Government Agent who reads this Document: :Walter-Allen :Thompson and I are both Sovereign Americans: :Walter-Allen :Thompson and I do not grant anyone License to represent either of Us in any way and :Walter-Allen :Thompson and I hereby rescind and revoke any signature and/or other action that might cause anyone to believe otherwise: :Walter-Allen :Thompson and I hereby accept Your Oath of Office as an open Offer forming a firm and binding contract between you and :Walter-Allen :Thompson and/or Me wherein is :Walter-Allen :Thompson’s and/or My obligation to help you to keep all of your many promises as viewed through that worthy document the United States Constitution as it requires at Article the Sixth at Clause the Third thereof: And if you do not have that Oath of Office, :Walter-Allen :Thompson and I hereby give you that Oath of Office, under God so help Us God: All subject to :Walter-Allen :Thompson
      ’s and My immediate receipt of your statement of claim, in writing, and your proof of claim, in writing, to the contrary.

      Al here’s hoping that the time will come soon that the reprobates, who are keeping your mail from getting to you, will have to stop using that the old Nazi excuse, “I’m only doing my job,” something will have to stop it from working for them. That excuse will definitely stop working for them when Jesus is the One asking the questions.

      Al here are some Quotes in regard to excuses that may come in handy for someone who really wants to do what is right.

      George Washington Carver: Quotes: Excuses:
      "Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses."

      Benjamin Franklin: Quotes: Excuses:
      “He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”

      Alexander Pope: Quotes: Excuses:
      “An excuse is worse than a lie, for an excuse is a lie, guarded.”

      Thomas Fuller: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Bad excuses are worse than none.”

      Unknown Author: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Don't make excuses, make good.”

      Publilius Syrus: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Every vice has its excuse ready.”

      Gabriel Meurier: Quotes: Excuses:
      “He who excuses himself, accuses himself.”

      Henry Ward Beecher: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

      Yiddish Proverb: Quotes: Excuses:
      “If you don't want to do something, one excuse is as good as another.”

      Francois De La Rochefoucauld: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible.”

      Napoleon Hill: Quotes: Excuses:
      “The best job goes to the person who can get it done without passing the buck or coming back with excuses.”

      Thomas Szasz: Quotes: Excuses:
      “Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse.”

      H. V. Adolt: Quotes: Excuses:
      “We are all manufacturers. Making good, making trouble, or making excuses.”

      Abraham H. Maslow: Quotes: Excuses:
      “We are not in a position in which we have nothing to work with. We already have capacities, talents, direction, missions, and callings.”

      Rudyard Kipling: Quotes: Excuses:
      “We have forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse.”

      Abraham Lincoln Quotes: Not Limited to Excuses:
      “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

      Unknown Author: Quotes: Excuses:
      “When it is yourself you are fooling with your excuses you are a hopeless fool indeed, so wake up and smell the coffee, then do something that both you and your family can be proud of you for doing.”

      Al there is really no excuse for preventing you from getting your mail. One fellow told me that the mail he sent you at the address on this letter was returned to him because the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department employee who processed that mail is either so inept or so evil that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department employee claimed that you are not there in the Jail and returned it to the sender.

      Al we are all hoping to see you soon and its really amazing how much of America had to be lost before what is happening to you could possibly happen.

      Yours truly,




      :William-Joseph :Moore.

      P.S.

      Al, I don’t believe that you are getting the latest news there where you are so here’s some late breaking news from yesterday September 29, 2004:

      At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator.

      At a morning press conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

      "Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said.

      "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle'."

      Overheard comment: "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes."



      --
      ___________________________________________________________
      Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
      http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
    • Occupant Family
      Greetings, Just tell them: If we cannot make a good example of you, we will make you a horrible warning ! Deo volente, Jim Blessed be the Lord my rock,
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings,
         
        Just tell them:
         
        "If we cannot make a 'good example' of you,
        we will make you a 'horrible warning'!"

        Deo volente,
        Jim
         
        Blessed be the Lord my rock, that teacheth my hands to war,
        and my fingers to fight. Psalms 144:1
         
      • Frog Farmer
        ... Yeah, I know - I personally use that information. ... Yeah, I ve said that too. For years. It falls upon deaf ears. ... No problem, Bill. You have to get
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Oct 3, 2004, at 5:55 PM, william moore wrote:
          > Frog Farmer...
          >
          > Hello again!!!
          >
          > The wording in CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20: SECTION 3:
          > States that: "Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and
          > employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior
          > officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they
          > enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
          > subscribe the following oath or affirmation:"

          Yeah, I know - I personally use that information.

          > However the Imposters, you tell us about, do not take and subscribe
          > that
          > oath or affirmation they take and/or subscribe to a different oath or
          > affirmation which in fact does make them Imposters:

          Yeah, I've said that too. For years. It falls upon deaf ears.

          > In a case such as Al Thompson's case, where Al is being held in the
          > Sacramento County Jail, exactly how would one go about convincing an
          > Imposter,
          > such as Lou Blanas who is presently doing business as the Sacramento
          > County
          > Sheriff, that he and his underlings must immediately release Al
          > Thompson from
          > the Sacramento County Jail because neither Lou Blanas nor his
          > underlings
          > have the authority to hold anyone prisoner there in the Sacramento
          > County Jail?
          >
          > Thank you again for your help,

          No problem, Bill. You have to get people, like Al, to quit accepting
          the claims of imposters in their life a lot earlier than when they find
          themselves in a jail cell. Would you like to tell us about all the
          times Al challenged one of the impostors? Or would the video/audio
          record show us Al acting and talking to them as though they were not
          his mere neighbors, on many earlier occasions? I could probably come
          up with a list of generic occasions where Al granted impostors official
          status. Why would Al do that? The most common reason is to be polite
          - people resist challenging impostors so much that I could not get any
          decent discussion of the process going on any of these mailing lists
          all year long.

          Even in your own letter that you posted on the 4th, you say,
          "regardless of what, the Judge, Frank C. Damrell, Junior said on the
          record at the Hearing on September 17, 2004". but don't you know he's
          NOT a judge? You know, but you ignore, because of the Lemming
          Principle - if enough people will call him "judge", you will too. Why?
          Without a judge there's no real record, but you talk about the record.

          So the answer to your question for help is, when people quit accepting
          a lie (even when they KNOW it's a lie - like you did, and Al did) they
          will challenge the lies offered to them, and the lies will fall.
          Someone else on one of these lists asked me, in effect, how to use the
          information that there are no officers, and I said to come back at me
          as one and we'd see how I handled it. He never replied again, probably
          thinking that there had to be a set of words to use, and no other.
          People must be able to respond to different inputs. There is no
          one-size fits all sentence that "works". Thought is required. To
          analyze Al's problem, we'd have to go back over the record and undo all
          the rights waivers he ever made. Do you have a chronology? Let's
          start with his incorporation...

          When Al realizes he's been dealing with impostors, his troubles may
          begin to end, but nobody can understand it for him - he has to know it
          himself, and act accordingly. I'll bet he's probably referred to "the
          judge" as recently as yesterday, without really thinking about the
          results of his false legal conclusions.

          > CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20:
          >
          > SECTION 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and
          > employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior
          > officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they
          > enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
          > subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

          So, no matter what the words of the oath, it has to be taken BEFORE
          THEY ENTER the office. If they never took it, or took it after someone
          complained that they hadn't taken it, does this forgive the crime of
          impersonation of an officer? Did Al ask anyone for the law that
          exempted them? If not, why not? Please answer all of my questions
          herein if you really want help.

          > "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
          > and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
          > tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
          > and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
          > Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
          > State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without
          >
          > any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
          > well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about
          > to enter.

          So they'd have to READ it, wouldn't they? What do you suppose an
          impersonator thinks when he reaches Art. XX, section 3?
          Wouldn't that prove he was in violation of the constitution? When he
          gets to it and reads it, and realizes he never took it, and he still
          collects that next paycheck, why do people like Al put up with it and
          call him by an official title? It's kinda like calling a drink a
          Bloody Mary when it has no tomato juice or vodka in it. Why? Why do
          people DO that? How are you going to STOP them from doing it??? Can
          you even stop yourself? I can stop myself.

          > And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a
          > qualification for any public office or employment.

          So, it's THIS oath that IS required as a qualification for any public
          office or employment, so why did Al waive that requirement, long before
          he found himself in jail?? How do you get people to have the guts to
          call a spade a spade when that impersonator is in your face making his
          very first lie or demand? That's where you stop all this. At least,
          that's where I do it.

          > "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee
          > of the State, including the University of California, every county,
          > city, city and county, district, and authority, including any
          > department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
          > instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

          What part of "every" don't people understand??

          I guess people get the government they deserve.

          For sure they get whatever they accept without objection, and timely
          objection of a sovereign, not the belated whining objection of the
          conquered.

          We have no legitimate government in California, at any level. Nobody
          can prove we do. Yet millions act as though we do.

          Al was one of them. When he changes his mind, maybe by reading the
          constitution once, and not ignoring REQUIREMENTS, he may have the
          gumption to object the next time someone tries to fool him into waiving
          his rights. He must STOP his cooperation with liars.

          So few are able to do that anymore.

          Regards,

          FF
        • chemelt
          ... I am that somebody (well at least I am one of those somebodies) who asked you HOW to challenge the pretenders. I never got into a debate with you as I
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 12, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...>
            wrote:


            > You have to get people, like Al, to quit accepting
            > the claims of imposters in their life a lot earlier than when they
            > find themselves in a jail cell.

            .....

            > I could not get any decent discussion of the process going on any
            > of these mailing lists all year long.
            > Someone else on one of these lists asked me, in effect, how to use
            > the information that there are no officers, and I said to come back
            > at me as one and we'd see how I handled it.
            > He never replied again, probably thinking that there had to be a set
            > of words to use, and no other.

            I am that somebody (well at least I am one of those somebodies) who
            asked you HOW to challenge the pretenders. I never got into a debate
            with you as I realized that it was futile to argue with you and you
            will now see why.

            My situation and that of many others (I suppose) is that I (we)
            constantly get dragged (kicking and screaming) into "domestic court".

            My ex has initiated four separate suits against me just this past year
            alone (when he gets up against the wall he abandons and starts a new
            action).

            I have challenge jurisdiction of the court (as stated in their own
            statutes) and still the pretenders ignore the statutes and do as they
            please. Anyone brass (stupid) enough to challenge their "authority"
            will always lose.

            I could see me now going into the court room and telling the
            pretenders (judges) that I didn't recognize their "authority" and they
            would laugh at me and enter a judgement against me, take my son from
            me, or do whatever they want to do (throw me in jail for "contempt").

            They care not for the law, and certainly care not for anyone
            challenging their perceived "authority".

            If I failed to show up in their "court" they would just enter a
            default against me and I would lose my son. I am in a no win
            situation.

            OK, so now Mr Frog Farmer, tell me how YOU would challenge the
            pretenders in a similar situation and don't tell me some flipping
            responce like you would never get married with a marriage license or
            some such nonsence (as I agree the license creates jurisdiction but
            the pretenders could care less for such technicalities).

            Go for it!

            Carol
          • william moore
            Hello!!! Am I correct in what I hear Frog Farmer saying that they are all IMPOSTERS because they failed to take the REQUIRED Oath of Office prior to their
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello!!!

              Am I correct in what I hear Frog Farmer saying that they are all IMPOSTERS because they failed to take the REQUIRED Oath of Office prior to their occupying the office that they now occupy under false pretences?

              Is it correct that the only real power that the IMPOSTERS have is the power we grant the IMPOSTERS by OUR going along with their machinations, for instance, by pretending that an IMPOSTER judge is REAL judge thereby granting the IMPOSTER judge the same degree of authority of a REAL judge?

              Is that why they can say things like there is no one in Federal Prison today who is not there by his own permission?

              Is the answer as simple as saying, “No I do not give you permission to do that,” and then shutting up?

              How does someone like Al who has given them permission take back the permission that he has given them?

              The questions for Al Thompson from Frog Farmer went out to Al via snail mail and it may be a while before the answers are available.

              Thanks again,

              Bill.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Jail Mail
              Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:12:11 -0700

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Jail Mail
              Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:12:11 -0700



              --
              ___________________________________________________________
              Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
              http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Yes, but you never answered any questions, or did as you now do - specifying some real situation to which I could respond. Asking HOW to challenge the
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 16, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Oct 12, 2004, at 2:47 PM, chemelt wrote:

                > I am that somebody (well at least I am one of those somebodies) who
                > asked you HOW to challenge the pretenders.

                Yes, but you never answered any questions, or did as you now do -
                specifying some real situation to which I could respond. Asking "HOW
                to challenge the pretenders" is about as general as "HOW to make
                bread". There are probably a hundred or more ways to do both. A
                general answer to "HOW" to challenge a pretender might be, "either
                verbally or in writing".

                > I never got into a debate
                > with you as I realized that it was futile to argue with you and you
                > will now see why.

                ...See why you realized it, or why it was futile? A debate would
                require two opposing positions, would it not? I had no idea there was
                any subject of argument to argue about. What were the two propositions
                available?

                > My situation and that of many others (I suppose) is that I (we)
                > constantly get dragged (kicking and screaming) into "domestic court".

                I take it you are exaggerating. Do you leave skidmarks? What state
                are you in? Did you know I was specifically speaking about California?

                > I have challenge jurisdiction of the court (as stated in their own
                > statutes) and still the pretenders ignore the statutes and do as they
                > please.

                Notice that you are not acting as though you think they are pretenders.
                Pretenders don't have any statutes.

                > Anyone brass (stupid) enough to challenge their "authority"
                > will always lose.

                If they are pretenders, there is nothing to lose. Pretend is not real.
                It's only pretend.

                > I could see me now going into the court room and telling the
                > pretenders (judges) that I didn't recognize their "authority" and they
                > would laugh at me and enter a judgement against me, take my son from
                > me, or do whatever they want to do (throw me in jail for "contempt").

                Just the way you speak of it reveals your mindset which tells me that
                to you, they are not pretenders. And you may be right because right
                now I do not really know where you are or what you are really dealing
                with. If you say they have "authority" and can enter judgments and
                take your son or "whatever they want" including throwing you in jail
                for contempt of pretender, then they very well may have such
                "authority" over YOU.

                > They care not for the law, and certainly care not for anyone
                > challenging their perceived "authority".

                I don't know what anyone cares about where I live.

                > If I failed to show up in their "court" they would just enter a
                > default against me and I would lose my son. I am in a no win
                > situation.

                Yes, it sounds like you are in a no win situation. I think a large
                part of it is in the way you speak of it, but maybe not.

                > OK, so now Mr Frog Farmer, tell me how YOU would challenge the
                > pretenders in a similar situation and don't tell me some flipping
                > responce like you would never get married with a marriage license or
                > some such nonsence (as I agree the license creates jurisdiction but
                > the pretenders could care less for such technicalities).
                >
                > Go for it!
                >
                > Carol
                >

                Let's see if I get this straight - you agree that the license creates
                jurisdiction, so you don't want me to tell you that I would never get
                married with one (even though that would be my answer) but you want me
                to imagine and then tell you how I would challenge an impersonator in
                your situation. I guess I can't do that. When I speak from my
                experience, it is the experience of a human who has spent his entire
                life claiming, exercising and defending his rights. My rights are on
                my mind a lot of the time, so that whenever I'm invited to waive them,
                I notice it and refrain from complying. I don't "find myself" suddenly
                married with a license, or driving with a license, or doing anything
                else with a license. I don't even have a license to do healing, which
                I do a lot as well. My dogs are unlicensed as well (in fact, that was
                my very first court case, taking three years from start to appeal, and
                costing the county over 5,000 FRNs.)

                I know it must sting having to know that you sold yourself into
                slavery, but I would not give up hope - there may very well be many
                ways to extricate yourself. I'm just not the guy to ask about that,
                since I have no experience breaking free of any master. I've always
                been free and plan to remain that way.

                The only hope I can give you would be if you were indeed in California.
                And if you are, the constitution says for you what it says for
                everyone else. And if you believe what you read, you can act on it as
                though you believe it. You do not have to take any polls to determine
                what a majority are willing to pretend, and I think for you to tell
                yourself what others are willing to pretend and what they care about
                may be doing yourself a disservice, because it really doesn't matter
                how many pretenders there are, pretending does not make anything real.

                I think a big part of the problem for many people is that they want to
                fill the vacuum that exists, the absence of real "officers", so they
                accept the sham substitutes that they are offered, for the lack of
                anything better. Imagine the fomer Soviet Union, when the government
                fell into nothingness over the course of a few days. Don't you think
                there were people way out in the hinterlands who never heard the news,
                and who still trembled in fear of the coming of the commissar? They
                had no idea that there was no more commissar to fear. Unscrupulous
                impersonators might even have taken advantage of the situation, taking
                for themselves that which the kulaks needed to give to anyone claiming
                to be commissar, whether the claim was real or not. The same
                situation exists in California. The news has never been announced that
                the whole show is a farce for the amusement of the gullible, and after
                all, it's a dirty job and SOMEBODY has to do it!

                All these unruly slaves out here need to be managed, and by who better
                than experienced actors? So we who know about the situation do not go
                around trying to free the slaves. No, we just spend time making sure
                our own rights are not infringed. You can lead a horse to water, but
                you cannot make him drink. If slaves don't want to be free enough to
                pursue it with daily diligence, then there's nothing any of us other
                free people can do to help them. I haven't met one slave yet that
                wants to pay me for my time so I can teach them how to be free. None
                has even offered to do my farm chores for me, or to even help me do
                them if I would teach them how to get free and maintain it. And I
                certainly don't have the time it takes to do so for nothing. Could you
                get an "A" on an 8th grade English exam? That's a place to start.
                Being able to diagram sentences is especially valuable for dealing with
                the output of impersonators and pretenders.

                When you never replied to me with some words out of your own mind,
                words that you imagine some pretender might use on you, I had nothing
                concrete to which to respond. And now you tell me that even if they
                were not pretenders, you'd still have no leg to stand on, but you still
                want to know how to challenge a pretender. Like you said, you are in a
                no-win situation, because rights are not the issue.

                I use the information that there are no officers. I use it to protect
                my rights. Where rights are not involved, I have no problem with
                pretenders. I don't have time to worry about changing the world,
                because I won't live long enough. But I cannot wait for political
                solutions either, so when these people come into my life, I CHALLENGE
                THEM AT THAT VERY FIRST OPPORTUNITY. I do not wait for their game to
                get tiring before I complain about it. I don't even get into it. So,
                no licenses, so sorry! No "applications" for privileges. No calling
                them "your honor" or "officer" or "judge". It's Mister, Miss or
                Misses. And, for those with NO IMAGINATION AT ALL, here's a way HOW to
                challenge one:

                "Hey mister! Do you have any personal knowledge of the California
                constitution?"

                (This is where you, Carol, would come up with the answer you need help
                with....would they answer "yes" or "no"???)

                If they say "no", then they'd be disqualifying themselves, WOULDN'T
                THEY??????? HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET THAT ANSWER, CAROL? How does
                one take an oath to "uphold" that which he has never even read and
                therefore cannot understand? And if you show him that he never took
                the oath, will he then uphold the constitution and admit he's not an
                officer? I've had them do just that!

                If they say "yes": "well then, how do you interpret Article XX,
                section 3? Do you have the exemption it refers to?"

                (This is where you, Carol, would come up with the answer you need help
                with....would they answer "yes" or "no"???)

                Will someone claim that it doesn't apply to them? What do you IMAGINE
                they would do, Carol? You cannot GUESS because each person will be
                unique. Most I meet admit that they never took the oath and are
                therefore not officers with the power to push me around. They don't
                quit pushing others around, just me and a few of my friends, because we
                know the law and we cannot pretend well enough to make anything appear
                real when it's not real. But YOU tell us pretenders can enter
                judgments in the record, even if the record shows they have no oath of
                office, isn't that right? I really think you're making all of this up,
                and are playing pretend with me too!

                You must not be in California, that must be the answer. Am I right?
              • Frog Farmer
                ... I prefer the word the law uses, impersonator , since it is the impersonation of an officer that is unlawful and a crime. But I also use the words
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 16, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Oct 13, 2004, at 1:29 PM, william moore wrote:

                  > Hello!!!
                  >
                  > Am I correct in what I hear Frog Farmer saying that they are all
                  > IMPOSTERS because they failed to take the REQUIRED Oath of Office

                  I prefer the word the law uses, "impersonator", since it is the
                  "impersonation of an officer" that is unlawful and a crime. But I
                  also use the words "imposters" and "pretenders" in order to clarify the
                  concept of deception.

                  >
                  > Is it correct that the only real power that the IMPOSTERS have is the
                  > power we grant the IMPOSTERS by OUR going along with their
                  > machinations, for instance, by pretending that an IMPOSTER judge is
                  > REAL judge thereby granting the IMPOSTER judge the same degree of
                  > authority of a REAL judge?

                  I would say that anyone who can have you thrown in jail has real power.
                  It may not be lawful power, but it is power just the same. however,
                  power does not always equal authority, or the power of an official
                  office.

                  It's called "arbitration" where people can agree to go without a "real"
                  judge and accept almost anyone as their judge. That's what all those
                  TV court shows do. They get the people to sign all kinds of waivers.
                  In court, they'll make you appear impolite when you don't make the
                  waivers they want you to make. No one likes to be perceived as being
                  impolite, do they? So they make the waivers.

                  > Is that why they can say things like there is no one in Federal Prison
                  > today who is not there by his own permission?
                  >

                  I'm sure a lot of them are, but I was speaking specifically of state
                  and local actors covered by the California Constitution. Fed
                  jurisdiction is already limited territorially so that you can usually
                  avoid it if you don't volunteer into it and don't accept it when
                  offered to you in the 50 states. You cannot be affecting interstate
                  or international commerce.

                  > Is the answer as simple as saying, “No I do not give you permission to
                  > do that,” and then shutting up?

                  It might be in one case or another. I don't think there's any
                  particular magic words to use, as each situation is different. Do you
                  want to let the perpetrator of the impersonation off with a warning, or
                  are you motivated enough to make a citizen's arrest? You have a lot of
                  discretion, because there aren't enough jail cells for all the
                  lawbreakers. Isn't that what the cop tells you when you tell him
                  other people were speeding along with you? "Well, I can only catch 'em
                  one at a time!" When there's too many to deal with, aim for the
                  ringleader.

                  On the other hand, what is your own legal status? Have you just signed
                  or verbally made a bunch of waivers where you actually just gave the
                  permission you're claiming to deny now? I see a lot of that too, where
                  people make a big deal over claiming some right, and then turn right
                  around and waive it. A good example of that would be someone
                  challenging jurisdiction of the court, then agreeing to or asking for a
                  continuance, or demanding a proper arraignment but then before getting
                  it, demanding a jury trial and agreeing to a trial date. I see that
                  all the time here, and it's a shame because they no longer conduct
                  proper arraignments, so I guess all the people jailed in Califiornia
                  have given their implicit consent. I know they had a hard time trying
                  to arraign me with several times taking over nine months each and they
                  never were successful.

                  >
                  > How does someone like Al who has given them permission take back the
                  > permission that he has given them?

                  First he has to identify all the permissions he wants to revoke. Maybe
                  he'd better learn to recognize when he's giving permission first. And
                  then he'll need to understand why he's not giving permission in each
                  instant case, as they occur. For example, it's hard to claim you are
                  not affecting interstate commerce when you have FRNs and credit cards
                  in your pocket. It's hard to deny fed jurisdiction when you've
                  applied for and used a Federal EIN.

                  It's a lot better not to grant jurisdiction in the first place than to
                  try to recover from a number of sequential waivers.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.