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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 of 19 , Jul 8, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Council of State Governments



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