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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Jail Mail

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Oct 8, 2004
      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 2 of 13 , Oct 12, 2004
        --- 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 3 of 13 , Oct 13, 2004
          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 4 of 13 , Oct 16, 2004
            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 5 of 13 , Oct 16, 2004
              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.