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

Re: Jail Mail

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.