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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... I never checked out Louisiana law, but I ve heard it s different than everywhere else. ... I d file it in the court of original jurisdiction. Are you
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 29, 2005, at 2:52 PM, The Handyman wrote:

      > I'm in Louisiana

      I never checked out Louisiana law, but I've heard it's different than
      everywhere else.

      > and I have researched Quo Warranto but was concerned as to where to
      > file it.

      I'd file it in the court of original jurisdiction. Are you ready to
      file it? What facts do you know that cause you to question the
      authority of those claiming to be officers in your case? There are
      quite a few different issues concerning identity and authority to speak
      for a non-living entity. What are YOUR issues?

      >   In the same case or a new one?

      It's a new one. Here, there never really seems to be a "case" in the
      legal meaning, but only in the street vernacular meaning, which it
      would be an error to adopt, here. I don't know what is going on there
      where you are.

      > I requested the oath of office from the State Police on the officer
      > that intends to testify at trial.  I also made a request for the oath
      > of three judges and the assistant prosecutor from the Secretary of
      > State.  I will have them soon. 

      I equate requests with motions. I prefer demands, and compulsory
      cooperation rather than leaving it to anyone's discretion. But a
      request is an acceptable way to begin. However, when the rubber meet
      the road, you can be left high and dry waiting for a request to be
      honored, whereas using freedom of information type laws compels
      performance timely.

      So, when you get these oaths, do you know what to compare them with to
      determine if they meet requirements? For example, here I use the state
      constitution at Article XX, section 3. It gives the requirements.

      > The trial is set for August 30 and I was planning on using Marc
      > Stevens method

      I don't know Marc Stevens or his method, although I am skeptical about
      legal procedures that have been on the books for years suddenly taking
      on the name of a popular user of those laws. Maybe you want the O.J.
      Simpson method instead. You do not want the Martha Stewart method.
      She cooperated in her own prosecution.

      Here they cannot get to trial without the cooperation of the accused.
      The reason is because they cannot conduct proper arraignments, and
      cannot go forward unless the victim waives a proper arraignment by
      going along with the sham performance by the impersonating actors.

      > if it goes to trial.  But I sure like your method and wish I had a
      > script but I will do my best. 

      I don't have a script. Every day is a new one.

      > I have to call these state actors something?  What would you suggest?

      How about their proper first and last names, like "Snidely Bilberry, is
      THIS your signature at the bottom of this piece of paper?" "John
      Clinton, was this your idea, or did someone tell you to do it?"

      > The state has a habit of using ad hoc judges when they want to put the
      > screws to you.  Most are retired judges. (sic)  Many are just
      > attorneys in a black robe still in the practice of law. This
      > particular Judge was at one time an elected judge and is very old and
      > very demanding but I stood my ground and stayed calm.

      Why do you think they have elected judges, and appointed judges who are
      really just attorneys? I was always taught to demand a real judge and
      not permit proceedings that require waivers of rights to conduct.

      One time they pulled a retired judge in to "do" me, because they knew
      his oath was in order. I caught him committing a felony during the
      proceedings, reported it and demanded an investigation, and that was
      the end of that case. They had tampered with the only evidence they
      held, and there were witnesses. Idiots.

      > He wanted me to plea and I said I could not plea until this court was
      > properly set and I was told the jurisdiction being applied.  He said
      > it is criminal and I enter a plea of not guilty for you.

      Yeah, this was handled all wrong if you ask me. The time to speak
      about court not being properly set was back when they all walked in.
      Did you sit there and see case after case before you? You knew the
      court was not set and yet you didn't say anything about it to any other
      "we, the people"?

      Here, they can only enter a plea if you "refuse" to do it. How can one
      enter a plea if numerous requirements leading to the point where a plea
      is requested have not been met? Were all the steps fulfilled by the
      time they asked for your plea? Did you demand any missing steps be
      performed? Here, it's almost an impossibility to conduct a proper
      arraignment and then ask for a plea. So they fake it, the people never
      read about arraignments before their own, and so they could not
      recognize a fake from the real thing, and they voluntarily enter pleas
      and go to trial and get convicted.

      See, you had no evidence to show that the court was not properly set.
      You need to get that in your hands BEFORE you show up "in court".
      Another fine point, but when you asked what jurisdiction was being
      applied, you admitted that jurisdiction was being applied.
      Jurisdiction is only applied by those with authority to apply it,
      therefore you admitted to the existence of someone applying
      jurisdiction. It's jumping the gun to discuss jurisdiction with people
      not qualified to be there, which you didn't know if they were or were
      not because you didn't investigate when you could.

      > I timely objected  to him practicing law from the bench and that's
      > when he ended the hearing and left court (sic).

      I would have characterized it as a sham proceeding, since I do not
      accept that impersonators can practice law or that "the bench" is not
      vacant, but then that is because I am here, not there. I have no idea
      of the state of things in Louisiana.

      > After I left I found out from a bondsman outside the court that Judge
      > RB was ad hoc.  I gave no permission for him to enter my case.  He was
      > so determined to intimidate me that he failed to offer assistance of
      > counsel and said the law permits him to enter a plea.  His exact words
      > were "The law says you can go to trial even without arraignment."

      Really? What did you find it to say?

      Even if I was up against a "real judge" I'd be using the procedures to
      disqualify him for cause before he could open his mouth in my case.
      It's a real mistake for people to sit there and watch just "to see what
      they'll do". Don't let them do anything!

      >   I bought the transcript as I did not trust that it would be
      > preserved. 

      Good idea.

      >  You said: "You obviously
      > knew about them before yesterday.  You didn't take the time to check
      > them out??"  What was there to check other than the oath?"  This is in
      > an unfamiliar Parish 40 mile from my home.

      Inconvenient. I check the oath and go to the newspaper office and see
      what I can pull up on them. Even the internet may have information.
      Ask around. Know who you are dealing with.

      >  "I only know the arraignment procedures for California."  It is the
      > same.  I checked the statute and it says the judge can enter a plea
      > but says nothing about entering a plea over the accused objection. The
      > only thing about no counsel at arraignment is they can't incarcerate
      > you.  Found nothing about validity.  Am still researching.

      Here, they need what they call an "accusatory pleading" a.k.a. "the
      complaint", and they have sufficiency requirements. They are supposed
      to give you a copy if you ask for it. Nobody does. Then they have to
      read it to you. They never do. They summarize it for you, as if you
      were a child. See Cal. Penal code section 988. That section defines
      an arraignment, and it is clear that here its requirements are never
      fulfilled yet the people acquiesce.

      > "The hearing?  Who testified under oath?"  There was no testimony.

      Here, that complaint is the testimony if it is signed under oath.
      Without testimony, how did those people know who they were prosecuting
      and for what??

      >  "There you go!  You just called him The Judge!"  Ok...what do I call
      > him?

      Bob. Frank. Robert. Mr. Impersonator.

      > What about the State Trooper and prosecutor?  What do I call them?

      If they are state troopers and prosecutors that's what you can call
      them. It's up to you. Here I don't have state tropers and
      prosecutors, just impersonators. I call them by their names, which
      most will tell you. Some will not. But I do not call anyone
      "officer" or "judge" because those are extinct species here.

      You have a lot of people you need to qualify fast. For those hoping to
      learn from your experience, they could start collecting evidence on
      their own probable local impersonators now.

      Do not be surprised to find someone who actually has their oath of
      office in order. You treat officers in authority differently than you
      would treat impersonators. Officers are even more restricted in their
      scope of permissible actions than are mere actors.
    • The Handyman
      Tt-or! That was great. One time I did call the State of Louisiana to the stand and no one appeared so I moved for dismissal. This time I will summons the
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Tthor!  That was great.  One time I did call the State of Louisiana to the stand and no one appeared so I moved for dismissal.  This time I will summons the state to appear.  Great idea!  This is what this site is all about...not a forum to critize each other for doing something wrong.  Thanks
         Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:09 PM tthor wrote:


        [My sincere apologies to the fictional "Bozo, the Clown".]

        Remember that Louisiana is the ONLY State of these united States that
        is "officially" governed under French/Spanish Civil Law.



        For "prosecutor", UNTIL qualified as such IN THE RECORD, you call
        him/her: Mr./Mrs./Ms Y.
        [Ask where "Bozo with a briefcase" thinks he/she got authority to
        Trespass in your affairs.... Subpoena the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
        LOUISIANA or THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; see who shows up. ASK them, "Do
        you know this guy claims to 'represent' you? Do YOU have a beef with me?"]




      • Frog Farmer
        ... What?! Great comedy?! Was it better than the answers I took the time to give? ( I notice that MY questions got no answers). How would witnesses report
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jul 1, 2005, at 5:51 AM, The Handyman wrote:

          > Tthor!  That was great. 

          What?! Great comedy?! Was it better than the answers I took the time
          to give? ( I notice that MY questions got no answers). How would
          witnesses report on the use of The Clown Response? Take a few moments
          to imagine it playing out.

          > One time I did call the State of Louisiana to the stand and no one
          > appeared so I moved for dismissal. 

          Did you get the dismissal?

          When no one appeared against you, you chose to make a general
          appearance in the record by granting jurisdiction to grant your motion.
          I suspect there might have been other evidence in the record that you
          had already otherwise granted jurisdiction, but it's just a hunch.)
          Can you explain the benefits of doing that, instead of letting the fact
          of no jurisdiction speak for itself? I never make motions, only
          demands. Anyone can honor my demands.

          > This time I will summons the state to appear.  Great idea! 

          Is it the state that is the plaintiff, and not "The People" as it is in
          so many other states?

          > This is what this site is all about...not a forum to critize each
          > other for doing something wrong.  Thanks

          I believe that the purpose of this site is to help create a greater
          number of winners, not to make others feel good because misery loves
          company. Just in case I'm misinterpreting your failure to reply to my
          observations, and your side-stepping of all the pertinent issues I
          raised, and the questions I asked so that I could better understand
          your position on the issues, I want to inform the other list members
          that if one re-reads what I actually said, there was no "criticism of
          each other for doing something wrong". This list exists because people
          are prone to do things wrong, so it's no surprise that "wrong things"
          get criticised. This is a separate proposition from the doer of the
          wrong thing being criticised. Hint: When the doer is being criticised,
          there will usually be psychiatric or moral evaluations made!

          Also since my opinions have yet to be refuted or corrected by one who
          knows better, the "wrong thing" has not been agreed to be anything more
          than my opinion.

          So, just in case The Handyman was feeling bad because he thought I was
          being mean and terrible and nasty to him, I wasn't. I commend anyone
          willing to stand up for their rights. When I see them skip over
          prerequisites, and thereby waive rights, I try to help by pointing
          things out that could be avoided. The effort spent creating an error
          is linear, while the effort spent overcoming and correcting an error is
          exponential.

          And if The Handyman got so bent out of shape emotionally that he
          ignored my reply on purpose and refused to answer my questions (while
          posting that he agreed that another response was "great") then this
          list needs to know that having a thin emotional skin does not
          predispose a person to winning in a court setting amid people who have
          no regard for your personal well-being, and who may actually enjoy
          seeing you suffer. I really don't want to see anyone suffer
          needlessly.

          >> For "prosecutor", UNTIL qualified as such IN THE RECORD, you call
          >> him/her: Mr./Mrs./Ms Y.

          Even Mr./Mrs./Ms. are unqualified titles unless YOU want to ratify
          them! Where's the EVIDENCE for that conclusion?! "Somebody said..."
          ??

          >> [Ask where "Bozo with a briefcase" thinks he/she got authority to
          >> Trespass in your affairs....

          Is this another case of attacking the doer of a thing versus the wrong
          thing being done? The use of Bozo might be fun, but not everyone is
          going to understand it, and it will not help you make friends among the
          witnesses.

          >> Subpoena the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
          >> LOUISIANA or THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; see who shows up. ASK them, "Do
          >> you know this guy claims to 'represent' you? Do YOU have a beef with
          >> me?"]

          Yes, all you serious people out there, do that and let another
          unqualified witness testify without the existence of a real case being
          proven first in a properly set court, and use terms like "beef" in a
          court and if you're not speaking about bovine flesh, you may be
          characterized as a "ham".

          Regards,

          FF
        • baer@gap.net
          ... May I suggest that you may be saying far more here than you should. Be prepared now to defend against already having defaulted to the defects to the extent
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:09 AM 6/29/2005, you wrote:
            Back in March Frog Farmer replied to a post saying:
             
            From: Frog Farmer
            >
            I challenge everyone's bona
            fides.

            "If they do not decide to voluntarily recuse themselves, then I use the
            statutory procedures for disqualifying them.  I've never had to proceed
            through to the end of those procedures, as they have always bowed out
            gracefully when given the opportunity."
             
                            In a traffic case I tried to do this with an ad hoc judge and he went into a rage entered a plea on my behalf and ended the hearing over my objections.  Yesterday, I was ordered back to court, refused to discuss motions and tried to disqualify all humans calling themselves part of the court.  I ask the prosecutor for one shred of evidence that he represented the state as he alleges.  Tried to do likewise with the clerk and was intending to do the same with the judge.  Such was not permitted.  The Judge got violent and ended the hearing when I ask if he was an elected judge or appointed judge.  He was not responsive.  He said  " my dear sir you have a judge." I may have made a mistake but I said until I receive a responsive answer this court is not properly set.  I still have another shot at challenging their bona fides but could use more on how I should do it. Should I send anything to the prosecutor/judge about everyone being prepared to be examined as to their bona fides at the trial set for August 30?  I could request they produce their oath and challenge it. I could really use some input as this Judge is a real dictator.I tried to assert:Ryder v. United States (1995), 515 U.S. 177, 182,132 L.Ed.2d 136, 143 wherein it said: The United States Supreme Court held that one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to a decision on the merits. I take this to mean all officers and not only the Judge. I could use questions to ask to challenge their bona fides and appointments. Help!

            May I suggest that you may be saying far more here than you should. Be prepared now to defend against already having defaulted to the defects to the extent that you have participated, although I think you have taken the correct approach. Do not fail to appreciate the importance of how you deliver your argument; it is usually a critically overlooked element.

            You do not have 'another shot at challenging their bona fides' at all and shouldn't suggest that you do. That comment alone is enough to invite the conclusion that you have abandoned your first attempt which, in itself, may disqualify you from the second. You have already questioned the judge's credentials by doing nothing more, necessarily, than saying that you are not persuaded of the validity of his claim to the position. Your reason need be nothing more than that you cannot find a basis upon which his claim can be established or verified. At that point the burden is conveyed to whomever has the responsibility of defending his claim, and the challenge remains in place and a bar to proceeding until it is countered. Anything less effectively defeats any conclusion from the proceeding. I'm not really sure of who would have the proper responsibility for validating the judge's authority to sit, but you would do well to insist that it come from the appropriate source and no one else. Do understand that the judge may be in the position of simply declaring the validity of his own authority. That may be enough to authenticate the proceeding, but given that his authority truly is illegitimate, he would be personally vulnerable and subject to punitive action. There should even be criminal implications here, if you care to be aggressive.

            It is not often easy, but being able to take a well constructed position that stands properly on its own can enable you to respond to a raving judge with silence, often a powerful and formidable tool. You just have to make sure that you are well enough schooled in what you are trying to achieve that you don't get caught with your britches down. That is most a matter of thoroughness, as a rule.

            I'm guessing that there is a fair chance that your judge will take you to trial and conviction (or its civil counterpart) irrespective of just about anything you say. You may find yourself in a position of not participating at all simply to sustain your challenge. Really, a pretender to a judgeship has no proper access to judicial immunity and his decisions are not enforceable, but be prepared for a fight. You might find that often the optimum formula for success is to put the system at such risk that the system itself will abandon this character.

            Baer




          • The Handyman
            ... From: baer@gap.net To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides Baer said:
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: baer@...
              Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:30 AM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides
              Baer said:  "I'm guessing that there is a fair chance that your judge will take you to trial and conviction (or its civil counterpart) irrespective of just about anything you say. You may find yourself in a position of not participating at all simply to sustain your challenge. Really, a pretender to a judgeship has no proper access to judicial immunity and his decisions are not enforceable, but be prepared for a fight. You might find that often the optimum formula for success is to put the system at such risk that the system itself will abandon this character.

              Baer
              Thanks baer. "not participating at all".....does that mean not to put up any defense or cross-examine?  I'm a slow learning country boy that don't mind swimming in the 30' end of the pool.  Is there any way to proceed under protest because of necessity, reserving proof of jurisdiction.  Can one proceed in what he claims is an improperly set court reserving proof that the court is properly set for the conviction to stick?  Lets face it.  It does not matter if you go to trial or not they will find you guilty. Frog Farmer has his method down pat but I'd like to try Marc Steven's method as I don't believe I can pull Froggy's method off.   To do such requires going to trial.  Trying to avoid jurisdiction to me is a futile effort.  The mear fact that you are there is sufficient or at least claimed by many.  I've had a judge say the same.  If you have a license, or have ever had a license they will claim they have jurisdiction so why not go to trial and raise the errors on appeal? 





              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005
            • baer@gap.net
              ... Your issue is not far removed from those who refuse to default to jurisdiction, and I am inclined to treat them in similar ways. Were you to raise the
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                At 05:20 PM 7/4/2005, you wrote:
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: baer@...
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:30 AM
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides
                Baer said:  "I'm guessing that there is a fair chance that your judge will take you to trial and conviction (or its civil counterpart) irrespective of just about anything you say. You may find yourself in a position of not participating at all simply to sustain your challenge. Really, a pretender to a judgeship has no proper access to judicial immunity and his decisions are not enforceable, but be prepared for a fight. You might find that often the optimum formula for success is to put the system at such risk that the system itself will abandon this character.
                Baer
                Thanks baer. "not participating at all".....does that mean not to put up any defense or cross-examine?  I'm a slow learning country boy that don't mind swimming in the 30' end of the pool.  Is there any way to proceed under protest because of necessity, reserving proof of jurisdiction.  Can one proceed in what he claims is an improperly set court reserving proof that the court is properly set for the conviction to stick?  Lets face it.  It does not matter if you go to trial or not they will find you guilty. Frog Farmer has his method down pat but I'd like to try Marc Steven's method as I don't believe I can pull Froggy's method off.   To do such requires going to trial.  Trying to avoid jurisdiction to me is a futile effort.  The mear fact that you are there is sufficient or at least claimed by many.  I've had a judge say the same.  If you have a license, or have ever had a license they will claim they have jurisdiction so why not go to trial and raise the errors on appeal?

                Your issue is not far removed from those who refuse to default to jurisdiction, and I am inclined to treat them in similar ways. Were you to raise the jurisdictional issue, jurisdiction would have to be addressed and resolved before anything further could take place. But if you could be induced into any kind of defense against the allegations, you would be deemed to have waived your objections to the jurisdictional defects. In a word, you would have authorized the trial to take place in the absence of valid jurisdiction and without regard for your objection. I am inclined to believe that even if you were to get the judge to acknowledge your reservation of rights on the record that it would be worth little or nothing, but I have to acknowledge that I am more than a little prejudiced in my analysis. My own choice would be to step back from any participation in a trial and put the court on notice that I am precluded from doing otherwise, based on prior court decisions that have dictated my choice in this respect. Personally, I would not willingly proceed to trial without jurisdiction having been successfully defended. I would consider going to trial if a judge were willing to take jurisdiction on his own authority, but I would make darn sure that I made specific reference on the record to his having deliberately done so at every opportunity I could manage. I would be contemplating the probability of litigating against him personally.

                I do have some experience in this respect and, based on what little experience I have of my own, am certain that to have followed my instincts to mount some kind of defense would have been the wrong decision. My last experience in this respect was not mine personally, but the judge did take the matter to trial and conviction without the defendant's participation in any respect. I don't think there is any question that this was an attempt to provoke some kind of desperate defense, but the defendant stood her ground. I removed the matter to the US District Court, and that resulted in all sorts of pressure to remove the case back to the state court for appeal (sic). The USDC eventually refused to hear it based on the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (which wasn't even applicable). The whole matter just died a quiet death, and the state has made no attempt to enforce its decision. I'm not sure what is next in that this is not my case, so without permission I can't really take any of this to the next logical steps. The judge has no access to immunity and would be vulnerable to being sued personally. Unless some effort is made to expunge the record, the record may remain even though it is unenforced and unenforceable. The reality is that this trial was a non-event.

                I'm not familiar with Marc Steven's method, so I can't really offer a comment. I can tell you, however, that the jurisdictional issue is an important one and should not be discounted. First, jurisdiction is not an issue that can be addressed by a judge without his forfeiting his judicial independence. I have never gotten this far, but were a judge to invoke and defend his jurisdiction, I would be demanding his recusal. Jurisdiction is for the prosecutor to defend, after all he is the one that put the action into his choice of court. I should mention that by raising the question of jurisdiction, you are not necessarily trying to avoid jurisdiction. Either the court has or doesn't have valid jurisdiction, and you can't do anything to change that. What you can do, however, is require the prosecutor to defend jurisdiction instead of you forfeiting to it. Jurisdictional issues are not nearly so simple as the terms 'personal' and 'geographical' imply.

                Having a license does forfeit to administrative authority to the extent that the license is in use. Those who claim to be 'traveling' to Granny's house may choose not to show a license at a traffic stop in which case they are not imposed upon by regulations affecting licensure. Those with expired or rescinded licenses have no such responsibility to the conditions of licensure. Understand that judges do lie. In fact, the availability of judicial immunity is basis enough upon which to gracefully and diplomatically decline on the record to accept virtually anything a judge might have to say in every respect. If you can suitably convey your disappointment at being able to accept a comment from the bench on the basis of the comprehensive availability of judicial access to immunity, you may find that the issue is dropped.

                Baer
              • Frog Farmer
                ... Method? I guess challenging lies is a method. I do what I do in order to avoid trial. To do what I do does not require going to trial. Even if it
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jul 4, 2005, at 9:20 AM, The Handyman wrote:

                  >> Frog Farmer has his method down pat but I'd like to try Marc Steven's
                  >> method as I don't believe I can pull Froggy's method off.   To do
                  >> such requires going to trial. 

                  Method? I guess challenging lies is a method. I do what I do in order
                  to avoid trial. To do what I do does not "require" going to trial.
                  Even if it "looks" like you are in a trial, sham proceedings are still
                  a sham and are not a trial. Trial is so far down the list of things
                  that can happen in a case. I try to derail a prosecution at every stage
                  previous to a trial. Arraignment is a key stage that if won can
                  prevent a trial. If arraignment is never completed, there can be no
                  trial. Here in California, arraignments cannot be completed without
                  the accused's cooperation, at least from what I've seen over the last
                  25 years.

                  >> Trying to avoid jurisdiction to me is a futile effort. 

                  If the court has jurisdiction, trying to avoid it is futile. If it
                  doesn't have it, it's not there to avoid until you give it to them by
                  waiving any valid objections. Can unqualified impersonators really
                  have jurisdiction?

                  >> The mear

                  Mere.

                  >> fact that you are there is sufficient or at least claimed by many. 

                  The question becomes, "where is there?" For me, "there" is "in
                  chambers", not "at trial". For me, the "courtroom" is not "court"
                  until it is properly set. A video camera, unlike a thinking human
                  being, is unable to differentiate a courtroom from a court. They look
                  identical. What makes one different from the other is the events that
                  transpire. The first event necessary to occur is for qualified
                  individuals to fill official roles. If that doesn't happen, the
                  courtroom never contains the court. As soon as I know I'm really in a
                  court, I know there are procedures to disqualify even real judges, so I
                  would use them before the judge could speak and act officially. I
                  would not wait to see what would happen. This is the point where most
                  people lose.

                  And this would happen before we even know whether or not there is a
                  real "case" to be adjudicated. How many of the people there would know
                  whether or not there was a real case to be heard? How would YOU know
                  if there was a real case to be heard?

                  >> I've had a judge say the same.

                  He might have been a judge, but until he's been qualified, we'll never
                  really know for sure.

                  >>   If you have a license, or have ever had a license they will claim
                  >> they have jurisdiction so why not go to trial and raise the errors on
                  >> appeal? 

                  They?? How many people are you going to listen to when "they" are
                  arrayed against you? How many of these people's opinions matter, if
                  they disagree with the record and the facts? If you know that the
                  court does not have jurisdiction, it does not matter what anyone else
                  "thinks". What matters is the record you make.

                  Appeals are only about valid objections made that were overruled. Can
                  impersonators overrule objections?

                  When I won my three cases over drivers license, registration and
                  insurance, I had previously held a license for over 14 years. When I
                  won my first case ever, over a dog license, my dog had been previously
                  licensed. What was necessary was for me to come to my senses after
                  believing lies for so long.

                  Regards,

                  FF
                • The Handyman
                  Many thanks to Baer and Frog Farmer. Let me lay out the entire proceeding thus far. After the accident the cop appeared, investigated the accident and made
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Many thanks to Baer and Frog Farmer.  Let me lay out the entire proceeding thus far.  After the accident the cop appeared,  investigated the accident and made the legal conclusion I was guilty of failure to yield.  To prove such they are subpoenaing the other driver to  testify at trial.  I signed the summons to appear with reservation of rights UCC-1-207. I then  rejected  their offer to contract for subject matter jurisdiction within three days by letter as Rice McCloud does.  Months went by and the sheriff finally served me to appear for an arraignment.  The arraignment was not held...it was rescheduled.  I appeared a second time and the ad hoc took control and refused to answer any questions.  Told him I had never been arraigned and he claims he arraign me by entering a plea on my behalf.  I objected and that was it.  I was subpoenaed to a motion hearing and tried to ask the judge (sic) things about his oath and the setting of the court but he got violent and said to proceed with motions.  I refused to ask him anything about motions and the hearing was concluded.  Thus far I've not been arraigned nor asked the judge to do anything.  Trial is set for August and today I got a certified copy of everyone's oath ........and they conform to what the state requires.  Now, (please don't get upset, I'm a slow learner) what do I do with these certified oaths?  How do I challenge them at trial?  Trial is August 30.  If all fails should I participate?  Marc Steven does participate[pate and disqualifies/impeaches the cop's testimony as well as show the court that there is no complaining party.  Claims his method always works and there is no trial. Please give me three question to ask about the oath.  I am sincerely interested and would like to avoid an appeal.
                  • ursam0
                    ... proceeding thus far. After the accident the cop appeared, ... snip ... Now, (please don t get upset, I m a slow learner) what do I do with these certified
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 6, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "The Handyman" <ebob@b...>
                      wrote:
                      > Many thanks to Baer and Frog Farmer. Let me lay out the entire
                      proceeding thus far. After the accident the cop appeared,
                      ... snip ...
                      Now, (please don't get upset, I'm a slow learner) what do I do with
                      these certified oaths? How do I challenge them at trial? Trial is
                      August 30. If all fails should I participate? Marc Steven does
                      participate[pate and disqualifies/impeaches the cop's testimony as
                      well as show the court that there is no complaining party. Claims his
                      method always works and there is no trial. Please give me three
                      question to ask about the oath. I am sincerely interested and would
                      like to avoid an appeal.

                      ==>
                      You have not neglected to determine if the opportunity to bring you to
                      trial is (was) time barred, have you? In particular, you should find
                      some limitation imposed by statute upon the maximum length of time
                      permitted to achieve arraignment after the filing of the charge. The
                      only possible exception to this, I would think, is if a continuance
                      has been charged to you somehow. Delays by others, officials included,
                      do not stop the clock. I generally see 30 days for 'non-crimes', 60
                      for misdemeanors, and 90 for felonies, but every state is different.
                      I'd say that there is a fair chance that even the 'plea on your
                      behalf' may not have met the statutory time requirement for validity.

                      Between access to immunity and the SCt 'forgiving' cops from giving
                      false testimony, it shouldn't be hard to impeach police, generally, as
                      competent witnesses.

                      baer
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... The problem is, there is no section 1-207. So this lets them know that you are using citations without having looked at them yourself. Also, the UCC was
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:48 AM, The Handyman wrote:

                        > I signed the summons to appear with reservation of rights UCC-1-207.

                        The problem is, there is no section 1-207. So this lets them know that
                        you are using citations without having looked at them yourself. Also,
                        the UCC was a piece of "model legislation" that was subsequently
                        adopted by each state and codified under each state's laws, so that in
                        California, when one wishes to use a section from the UCC model, one
                        looks up its counterpart in the California Commercial Code to make sure
                        that the number and wording is still the same, and then one cites the
                        CCC, not the UCC. The numbers and wording are not always the same.
                        The UCC section you might want is now 1-308. Cute, eh?

                        Also, I cannot think of a reason to sign a summons, unless it is part
                        of a promise to appear, which is a separate contract. One does not
                        need to promise to appear. If they really have authority to try you,
                        they can arrest you without any consent on your part. So I am a little
                        confused as to what you really signed. The last summons I got said
                        that if I did not appear, I may be arrested. I said to myself, "that
                        means I may NOT be arrested", so I waited to be arrested and they never
                        did it.

                        If you knew they had no jurisdiction (I don't know if they did or did
                        not) why would you sign anything?

                        > I then  rejected  their offer to contract for subject matter
                        > jurisdiction within three days by letter as Rice McCloud does.  Months
                        > went by and the sheriff finally served me to appear for an
                        > arraignment. 

                        I don't know about Rice McCloud. I would have required them to arrest
                        me if I knew they had no jurisdiction. They then have 72 hours to
                        arraign me, and 30 days to get me to trial if I don't bail out.
                        Bailing out grants jurisdiction. Even if I did grant jurisdiction,
                        they'd have to commence trial within 45 days unless I was to make
                        another waiver of rights.

                        > The arraignment was not held...it was rescheduled.

                        This is why I'd force them to arrest me. They cannot play games like
                        that when no rights are waived. I'm wondering why you signed anything,
                        and why you appeared voluntarily when you said they had no
                        jurisdiction.

                        > I appeared a second time and the ad hoc took control and refused to
                        > answer any questions. 

                        Maybe they felt they had you after you made two general appearances
                        (which grant jurisdiction).

                        > Told him I had never been arraigned and he claims he arraign me by
                        > entering a plea on my behalf.  I objected and that was it. 

                        When you make an objection, it has to have substance behind it (the
                        lawful reason for it). Just objecting with no stated reason is not an
                        objection. What was the reason you gave while objecting? If there was
                        none, maybe he thought you were being frivolous and refusing to plead.

                        I would have taken him through the steps of the arraignment process and
                        asked him how he performed each one, or better yet, stating on the
                        record that he failed to perform each one. One does not arraign by
                        entering a plea for someone. One enters a plea for someone as part of
                        the late stages of an arraignment in which the accused refuses to make
                        a plea. It becomes time to enter a plea only after certain other parts
                        of the arraignment are completed. Maybe you need transcripts of the
                        arraignment, for later evidence. The evidence should show you
                        objecting for specific reasons, such as the failure to do A,B, and C.

                        > I was subpoenaed to a motion hearing and tried to ask the judge (sic)
                        > things about his oath and the setting of the court but he got violent
                        > and said to proceed with motions.  I refused to ask him anything about
                        > motions and the hearing was concluded. 

                        One who challenges jurisdiction has no use for motions, since they
                        themselves grant jurisdiction to make a judicial decision. Did the
                        subpoena say that you may be arrested if you failed to appear?

                        > Thus far I've not been arraigned nor asked the judge to do anything. 
                        > Trial is set for August and today I got a certified copy of everyone's
                        > oath ........and they conform to what the state requires.

                        Really? Too bad. I know that some states still have people under
                        proper oaths. Even California has a few still alive.

                        >   Now, (please don't get upset, I'm a slow learner) what do I do with
                        > these certified oaths? 

                        Keep them for reference, but if they conform, they conform and there's
                        not much to do with them after you see that. Here, they do not
                        conform. Here, they are proof that the person failed to take the
                        required oath.

                        > How do I challenge them at trial? 

                        What is to challenge if they conform??

                        > Trial is August 30.  If all fails should I participate?  Marc Steven
                        > does participate[pate and disqualifies/impeaches the cop's testimony
                        > as well as show the court that there is no complaining party.  Claims
                        > his method always works and there is no trial.

                        If I were you, I'd be researching your local laws to see how all of the
                        steps of a prosecution are performed, and look for places where they
                        deviated from the proper procedures. Like I've said before, here I've
                        identified over 100 steps to go through in a case from start to finish.
                        They build upon each other, some laying foundation for later steps.
                        Even if the people here were proven to have the right oaths (and there
                        may still be a few left) they still have to do the rest of it right as
                        well. Here, they cannot complete arraignment without the cooperation
                        of the accused, whom they rely upon not to know the steps that are
                        required. Arraignment is well-defined and it is easy to see if they do
                        it right or not. Is it well-defined in Louisiana?

                        When I was in court, they kept showing up ready for trial, and I kept
                        taking them back to the arraignment every time, twice I did it nine
                        times in nine hearings in nine months. They finally gave up because of
                        my right to a speedy trial in both "cases" (they weren't really cases,
                        which was why there couldn't be a real arraignment!)

                        > Please give me three question to ask about the oath. 

                        When I have certified evidence that they did not take the required
                        oath, I'd ask, "is this the oath of office you signed?" They'd say
                        "yes". I then would ask, "did you sign any other oath?" Our
                        constitution specifies "and no other oath". I might then ask, "how do
                        you explain that the required oath contains so many words, and yet the
                        oath you signed contains far fewer words? Did you fail to read the
                        words in the constitution saying "no other oath"? What made you decide
                        to take this other non-authorized oath? Was this your idea, or did
                        someone else put you up to it? How long have you been impersonating
                        an officer?"

                        > I am sincerely interested and would like to avoid an appeal.

                        Actually, if you are going into a real court in a real case, and you
                        want to win, you want to do everything from the point of view that you
                        will be taking an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, so you first
                        have to qualify your case under the Ashwander Rules, see the case
                        Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority. I don't have the cite handy.
                        See if any of those 7 rules will knock your case out.

                        Since you failed to invoke and conduct your own case in the "one
                        supreme Court" mentioned in the Constitution - (Google "James Alan
                        Daum"), you may have to settle for the court mourning over the loss of
                        Sandra O'Conner. JAD says he got inspiration from some of my earliest
                        writings on the web back in the 80's. He thinks more like me than
                        anyone else I've seen yet, although there are a handful I readily can
                        agree with, with regards to being sovereign over servants. With my own
                        brain damage due to a triple skull fracture, I have to say that he has
                        gone beyond anywhere I've ever been or can get to with regards to the
                        formalities of using the one supreme Court. I've always done it
                        instinctively without knowing how, but he does it consciously, knowing
                        how and why he does things he does. He went forward where I left off.
                        Is there time to learn how to govern your own government before August?
                        Probably not, but this case might provide an impetus to be more ready
                        for the next one. There is always a next one.

                        Today, JAD and I seem to have a disagreement as to the status of the
                        entity involved, and the significance and effects of certain historical
                        facts of the 1860's. I am trying my best to learn from him because his
                        writings can be even more cryptic than my own. It seems like he is the
                        extension of where I'd be if my head hadn't been smashed with 7 blows
                        of a large tire iron. When I read what he writes, I think that I do
                        what he does but more simply without more work, and with different
                        relations between the entities involved but also without more evidence
                        for others to see and learn from. I used to put a lot more effort into
                        trying to share ideas with people. There's a phrase, "shoveling s***
                        against the tide." But then again there veins of gold amid mountains
                        of granite. That's why I participate here but not on my own website
                        (which was hacked and destroyed) while I no longer have the time for
                        private correspondence.

                        Appeals are only taken on issues raised by objections that were
                        improperly overruled, so you will want to learn how to make proper
                        objections that will get into the record. Your law library may have a
                        book on trial objections. There are over 20 that you may wish to use.
                        You have to know them to be able to use them, since "I object!" alone
                        does not identify either the object or the cause of your objection.

                        I'd try to make a list of all the things that have to happen before
                        anyone gets to object to anything done by anyone.

                        From the sound of it, seeing now that you have given your signature
                        (under what we do not know) and have a postponed trial date (that you
                        sound like you'd be walking into) jurisdiction as an issue may now be
                        moot.

                        Every action they take has to have foundation in the law. The law
                        should be requiring them to perform specifically. Your job is to see
                        where they drop the ball and then call them on it, and do not permit
                        them to judge their own behavior. You should be getting familiar with
                        procedures to disqualify judges, and others, which is done BEFORE
                        trial. But just as JAD and I may not react the same in all cases, we
                        do what we need to do to avoid waiving any rights for any cause or
                        reason. You DO have the right to do that!

                        Regards,

                        FF
                      • JD
                        As of 1 July, UCC 1-207 was still on the Tennessee books. ... From: Frog Farmer On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:48 AM, The Handyman wrote: The problem is, there is no
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 7, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          As of 1 July, UCC 1-207 was still on the Tennessee books.
                          ----- Original Message -----


                          On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:48 AM, The Handyman wrote:


                          The problem is, there is no section 1-207.  So this lets them know that you are using citations without having looked at them yourself.  Also, the UCC was a piece of "model legislation" that was subsequently adopted by each state and codified under each state's laws, so that in California, when one wishes to use a section from the UCC model, one looks up its counterpart in the California Commercial Code to make sure that the number and wording is still the same, and then one cites the CCC, not the UCC.  The numbers and wording are not always the same 
                          The UCC section you might want is now 1-308.  Cute, eh?

                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Even California law says it may be known and cited as the UCC, but the point I was making, besides the fact that 1-207 is now 1-308 (in the current model
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 8, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Jul 7, 2005, at 4:19 PM, JD wrote:

                            > As of 1 July, UCC 1-207 was still on the Tennessee books.

                            Even California law says it may be known and cited as the UCC, but the
                            point I was making, besides the fact that 1-207 is now 1-308 (in the
                            current "model version") was that each state adopted it and modified
                            it as their own state law, not as an overriding federal law.

                            I did some searching just this morning:
                            http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/uniform_commercial_code_(u.c.c.)
                            :

                            Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.)

                            A uniform law governing commercial transactions. The U.C.C. has been
                            adopted by all states except Louisiana.

                            http://www.lhclearinghouse.com/codehistory.htm#Commercial :

                            Commercial Code

                            The California adoption of the UCC first occurred in 1963, with
                            periodic adoptions and amendments since that time.

                            Here's a discussion about it:
                            http://forum.suijuris.net/archive/index.php/t-538.html

                            Now, everyone needs to verify the situation in their own state. I
                            makes you wonder who has the clout to change something like this, since
                            there is no change in the substance of it. In whose twisted mind did
                            this change originate??
                          • ursam0
                            ... that you are using citations without having looked at them yourself. Also, the UCC was a piece of model legislation that was subsequently adopted by each
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 8, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "JD" <jdulaney@n...> wrote:
                              > As of 1 July, UCC 1-207 was still on the Tennessee books.
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: Frog Farmer
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:48 AM, The Handyman wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > The problem is, there is no section 1-207. So this lets them know
                              that you are using citations without having looked at them yourself.
                              Also, the UCC was a piece of "model legislation" that was subsequently
                              adopted by each state and codified under each state's laws, so that in
                              California, when one wishes to use a section from the UCC model, one
                              looks up its counterpart in the California Commercial Code to make
                              sure that the number and wording is still the same, and then one cites
                              the CCC, not the UCC. The numbers and wording are not always the same
                              > The UCC section you might want is now 1-308. Cute, eh?

                              Actually, there are a number of states that retain the 1-207 section.
                              New York, I believe, does too. These may still change, but the advice
                              of looking at the section before citing it makes good sense.
                            • The Handyman
                              Many thanks Froggy. I am told that the number does not matter. It is the words without prejudice that is important. ... Even California law says it may be
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 8, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Many thanks Froggy.  I am told that the number does not matter.  It is the words "without prejudice" that is important.
                                 


                                On Jul 7, 2005, at 4:19 PM, JD wrote:

                                > As of 1 July, UCC 1-207 was still on the Tennessee books.

                                Even California law says it may be known and cited as the UCC, but the
                                point I was making, besides the fact that 1-207 is now 1-308 (in the
                                current "model version")  was that each state adopted it and modified
                                it as their own state law, not as an overriding federal law.

                                I did some searching just this morning:
                                http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/uniform_commercial_code_(u.c.c.)
                                :

                              • jm367
                                Council of State Governments
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 8, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Council of State Governments



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