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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Fwd: Public Officers Reqired To Be Bonded, but usually...

Expand Messages
  • jeb
    FF says ... of Orange County judges, and many of the employees of the police department... It would seem that for those for whom you don t have oath copies a
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      FF says
      >I do not expect a valid warrant to be issued because my pile of certified oaths contains invalid ones for every name on the list
      of Orange County judges, and many of the employees of the police department...


      It would seem that for those for whom you don't have oath copies
      a negative affidavit might be a good approach:

      Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has filed a Constitutional oath and believes that none exists.

      Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has posted a
      bond for faithful performance of his/her lawful duties and believes that none exists.

      jeb
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Yes, but for whom am I going through this exercise? I have better things to do than to try to straighten out a very screwed up state. I won t live long
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 26, 2005, at 6:29 PM, jeb wrote:
        > It would seem that for those for whom you don't have oath copies
        > a negative affidavit might be a good approach:
        >
        > Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has filed a
        > Constitutional oath and believes that none exists.
        >
        > Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has posted a
        > bond for faithful performance of his/her lawful duties and believes
        > that none exists.
        >

        Yes, but for whom am I going through this exercise? I have better
        things to do than to try to straighten out a very screwed up state.

        I won't live long enough to see things straightened out. I can't file
        negative affidavits on everyone who deserves one.

        And who is qualified to receive them?

        California and other states have created a "Catch-22" situation from
        which they cannot extricate themselves.

        For those unwilling to "pretend", there are no longer any officers to
        act for the imaginary state.

        There are no longer any attorneys authorized to speak for anyone,
        including the state.

        Too many laws, and too many laws broken, have finally resulted in an
        absurd outcome.

        If people want to ignore this, and pretend to their heart's content,
        it's okay with me as long as they don't try to force me to do the same
        thing.

        I'm going to operate on the theory that the constitutions, and laws in
        pursuance thereof, are the only laws I have to follow, and when the
        people choose to operate outside of constitutional limitations, it is a
        private affair for them, and is okay as long as they do not affect me
        and my own rights. It's not that I'm so enamored with the
        constitutions, but nobody has any valid claim to make me liable for
        observing anything else, such as popular myths promulgated on TV and
        Hollywood movies. If all the people suddenly believed that eating
        bananas on Sunday was unlawful, despite finding no such law on the
        books, I should not be expected to stop eating bananas on any day I
        choose.

        Until someone explains to me why a constitutional requirement for new
        officers should be ignored, I'm not going to ignore it.

        Until someone explains how a constitution gets amended outside of the
        established procedures for doing so, I will not believe any such new,
        undocumented, method exists. I will believe that the constitution
        means what it says. Poll results will not sway my resolve that such is
        the case.

        But thanks for the idea - it might be of use elsewhere by others where
        constitutional officers are not extinct.
      • Don Schwarz
        Challenge the law as being unconstitutional. If you do not do this, then you accept the law as it applies to you and are just now arguing about the elements of
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment

          Challenge the law as being unconstitutional.

          If you do not do this, then you accept the law as it applies
          to you and are just now arguing about the elements of the crime.

          Under federal law, 18 USC s.922, if you are not an ineligible person
          to possess a firearm, then by the supremacy of Acts of Congress
          relating to Interstate commerce of firearms, you are in lawful possession
          of that firearm.

          As Congress intended for all lawful Americans to possess, Congress
          accepts the fact that gun might accidently discharge.

          These accidental discharges cannot be made criminal, only for
          extreme neglect or if someone is hurt and a civil suit would then apply.

          Be sure you read and understand this section of Title 18 USC:

          Title 18 USC Sec. 927 "Effect on State law"
          "No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on
          the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates
          to the exclusion of the law of a State on the same subject matter,
          UNLESS there is direct and positive conflict between such provision and
          the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together."


          What Congress is specifically saying above, is that as long as the states
          DO NOT enact laws that conflict with the GCA of 1968, then those state laws
          stand, but the moment those state laws conflict with rights secured by the
          GCA of 1968, the Act of Congress supercedes state law on the same subject
          matter.


          Oh yes, the Supreme Court also said in:
          MUTUAL LOAN INS. CO. vs MARTELL, 222 US 225, that in order for a law
          to be constitutional it must:

          be induced by an EVIL;

          an EVIL that is a direct and immediate concern;

          be based upon concrete conditions - not theories;

          have scope and effect;

          must not be so broad as to encompass everything;

          must not be ambiguous.


          HURTADO, 110 US 516,

          at page 535,6...................
          "But it is not to be supposed that these legislative powers are absolute and despotic, and that the amendment prescribing due process of law is too vague and indefinite to operate as a practical restraint. It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power.


          Abritrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."


          If you have a hearing, make sure all your friends are there.
          Invite the media in.

          Have the DA specifically address what EVIL is diminished by
          you being charged with a discharge in city limits.

          Have him show you, the law has scope and effect - that the law has reduced
          accidental shootings etc.

          Have him bring forth the documented study which induced the enactment
          of the law itself. Facts figures etc.

          You can even do this as a request for documents.

          Laws are NEVER constitutionally enacted, to do NOTHING!



          At 08:22 AM 2/26/05 -0800, you wrote:
          You recently accidentally discharged a firearm in your own home.  All damages to all properties have been repaired and no one is pressing any charges or seeking any further redress.
           
          The Newport Beach City Police have recommended a charge of discharging a weapon within city limits.  I am the Orange County District Attorney's office and am bringing charges against you for discharging a weapon within the city limits AND for willful discharge of a weapon with criminal disregard for life.
          How do you respond?
           

          Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

          On Feb 25, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Liam99liam@... wrote:
          > Your information concerning the proper requirements regarding oath of
          > office and bonding from those in public office, would logically appear
          > to be the first crucial steps in preparing an adequate defense.
          There is no need to "prepare a defense" if you call the impersonator's
          bluff the moment he tells his first lie to you.  An impersonator cannot
          create a charge you have to defend against; only an officer can do
          that.
          >  Since you have obviously been there and done that, would you please
          > consider offering this forum some concrete first preliminary steps to
          > be taken in order to first establish if the public office holders have
          > performed their duty under the law, regarding their oath and bond.
          The first step is to get YOU to quit calling them "office-holders" when
          they are NOT.  The first step is to get the names of those you might
          have a problem with and going and getting certified copies of their
          oaths of office.  You'll have to research where these are kept in your
          specific case.  Then you'll have to go get them.  And pay for them in
          coin if you use the money issue.  Then compare what you got to the
          requirements for your situation.
          > In other words, I'm asking you to share the pertinent details of your
          > experiences when forcing government agents to abide by the law.
          I'm speaking of dealing with criminal impersonators, not government
          agents.
          In California, we appear to have no state agents under retirement age.
          =================================
        • pireleif88@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/26/05 11:29:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... originations of which dates back to when the letter U was superimposed over the letter S
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/26/05 11:29:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, jaykayonline@... writes:




            $ itself is undefined.  The genuine and original has two vertical strokes


            originations of which dates back to when the letter"U" was superimposed over the letter "S"
          • jeb
            ... I should have been more clear in that I consider them additional evidence of failure of oath, etc, and I like the idea of a rebuttal requiring positive
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 28, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Frog Farmer wrote:

              >
              >On Feb 26, 2005, at 6:29 PM, jeb wrote:
              >
              >
              >>It would seem that for those for whom you don't have oath copies
              >>a negative affidavit might be a good approach:
              >>
              >>Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has filed a
              >>Constitutional oath and believes that none exists.
              >>
              >>Affiant has seen or heard no evidence that so-and-so has posted a
              >>bond for faithful performance of his/her lawful duties and believes
              >>that none exists.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >Yes, but for whom am I going through this exercise? I have better
              >things to do than to try to straighten out a very screwed up state.
              >
              >
              I should have been more clear in that I consider them additional
              evidence of failure of oath,
              etc, and I like the idea of a rebuttal requiring positive proof.

              jeb
            • Frog Farmer
              ... If I ever get called by the grand jury I might think it worth going through that exercise, but until then, nobody is worth the time, in my opinion.
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Feb 28, 2005, at 3:29 PM, jeb wrote:
                > I should have been more clear in that I consider them additional
                > evidence of failure of oath,
                > etc, and I like the idea of a rebuttal requiring positive proof.
                >

                If I ever get called by the grand jury I might think it worth going
                through that exercise, but until then, nobody is worth the time, in my
                opinion.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.