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

Re: Court rules and procedures

Expand Messages
  • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
    I think a lot of people are missing the boat by not demanding JUDICIAL NOTICE as shown by the CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE. 452. Judicial notice may be taken of
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I think a lot of people are missing the boat by not demanding JUDICIAL NOTICE as shown by the CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE.
      452.  Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451:
         (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state.
         (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States.
         (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.
         (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.
         (e) Rules of court of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.
         (f) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations.
         (g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
         (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.
      453.  The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and:
         (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and
         (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.

      456.  If the trial court denies a request to take judicial notice of any matter, the court shall at the earliest practicable time so advise the parties and indicate for the record that it has denied the request.

      457.  If a matter judicially noticed is a matter which would otherwise have been for determination by the jury, the trial court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury to accept as a fact the matter so noticed.

      458.  The failure or refusal of the trial court to take judicial notice of a matter, or to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, does not preclude the trial court in subsequent proceedings in the action from taking judicial notice of the matter in accordance with the procedure specified in this division.
      Of course, the ROPE they use to HANG us are the PRESUPTIONS & INFERENCES we FAIL to REBUT and the MATTERS that they AUTOMATICLY take JUDICIAL NOTICE of in SECTION 451.
      451.  Judicial notice shall be taken of the following:
         (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
         (b) Any matter made a subject of judicial notice by Section 11343.6, 11344.6, or 18576 of the Government Code or by Section 1507 of Title 44 of the United States Code.
         (c) Rules of professional conduct for members of the bar adopted pursuant to Section 6076 of the Business and Professions Code and rules of practice and procedure for the courts of this state adopted by the Judicial Council.
         (d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy.
         (e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions.
         (f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
      Arguing the PROSECUTION'S POSITION and then GRANTING their MOTIONS definitely sounds "practicing law from the bench" to me and it appears to be a clear ABUSE of DISCRETION and a SHOWING of BIAS which at the very least is CAUSE for immediate DISQUALIFICATION.
       
      And that is great point about the NATURE of the JUDGE'S ACTS, since the NATURE of the ACT is determined by it's CHARACTER, not the CHARACTER of the AGENT.

      "It was insisted during the argument on behalf of the petitioner that Congress cannot punish a State judge for his official acts; and it was assumed that Judge Cole, in selecting the jury as he did, was performing a judicial act. This assumption cannot be admitted. Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. It often is given to county commissioners, or supervisors, or assessors. In former times, the selection was made by the sheriff. In such cases, it surely is not a judicial act, in any such sense as is contended for here. It is merely a ministerial act, as much so as the act of a sheriff holding an execution, in determining upon what piece of property he will make a levy, or the act of a roadmaster in selecting laborers to work upon the roads. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court- criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?

      But if the selection of jurors could be considered in any case a judicial act, can the act charged against the petitioner be considered such when he acted outside of his authority and in direct violation of the spirit of the State statute? That statute gave him no authority, when selecting jurors, from whom a panel might be drawn for a circuit court, to exclude all colored men merely because they were colored. Such an exclusion was not left within the limits of his discretion. It is idle, therefore, to say that the act of Congress is unconstitutional because it inflicts [100 U.S. 339, 349]   penalties upon State judges for their judicial action. It does no such thing."  EX PARTE STATE OF VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/100/339.html   

      Is the ACT is MINISTERIAL?
      MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judidial; as, the sheriff is a ministerial officer bound to obey the judicial commands of the court.
       
      2. When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. See 2 Fairf. 377; Bac. Ab. Justices of the Peace, E; 1 Conn. 295; 3 Conn. 107; 9 Conn. 275; 12 Conn. 464; also Judicial; Mandamus; Sheriff.  Bouvier's 1856 Edition.
       
      Ministerial act. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial.  That which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill.  Arrow Exp. Forwarding Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 256 Iowa 1088, 130 N.W. 2d 451, 453.  An act is 'ministerial' when its performance is positively commanded and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt.  Brenneman Co. v. Schramm, D.C. Pa., 473 F. Supp. 1316, 1319.  Official's duty is 'ministerial' when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.  Long v. Seabrook, 260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E., 2d 659, 662. One which a person or board performs under a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to or the exercise of his or their own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done. State Dept. of Mental Health v. Allen.,  Ind.  App., 427 N.E. 2d 2, 4;  Gibson v. Winterset Community School Dist., 258 Iowa 440, 138 N.W. 2d 112, 115. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 996.
       
      Ministerial duty.  One regarding which nothing is left to discretion -- a simple and definite duty, imposed by law, and arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist.  Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 996.
       
      Ministerial office.  One which gives the officer little or no discretion as to the matter to be done, and requires him to obey mandates or a superior. It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by a deputy, while a ministerial office may.  Black's Law, 6th Ed., p. 1083.
       
      Ministerial function. A function as to which there is no occasion to use judgment or discretion. Hood Motor Co., v. Lawrence, La., 320 So. 2d 111, 115. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 996.
      Or is the ACT JUDICIAL in nature?
       "However, the Supreme Court has held that judges can be held liable for damages[1] in suits where actions which are administrative in nature are challenged.  See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224-225 (1988).  The Court in Forrester refused to attach judicial immunity to a judge's decision to fire a court employee, because the act was not judicial in nature.  The Court held that truly judicial acts must be distinguished from the administrative, legislative or executive functions that judges may occasionally be assigned to perform.  According to the Court, it is the nature of the function performed -- adjudication -- rather than the identity of the actor who performed it -- a judge -- that determines whether absolute immunity attaches to the act.[2]  Any time an action taken by a judge is not an adjudication between parties, it is less likely that the act [will be found to be] a judicial one.  Cameron v. Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 271 (6th Cir. 1994).
       
      In Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1989), a Chief Judge's moratorium on writs of restitution during two holiday weeks was challenged by a landlord unable to redeem his property from a tenant for those two weeks.  The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the moratorium, though performed by a judge, was not a judicial act entitled to absolute immunity.  Id. at 466.  The court noted that the act was not judicial in nature, because the legislature could have easily issued the moratorium as well.  Id."
      UNITED STATES' BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE Badillo v. Andreu, et al
      And since it appears that MOST ACTS by JUDGES are not JUDICIAL in nature, if we SHOW that, couldn't they held PERSONALLY LIABLE for their ACTIONS under COLOR OF LAW?
       
      Such as for VIOLATIONS of 18 U.S.C.A. §241, 18 U.S.C.A. §242, 18 U.S.C.A. §1621, 42 U.S.C.A. §1983, 42 U.S.C.A. §1985 & 42 U.S.C.A. §1986, as well as violations of STATE LAW?
       
      And wouldn't the same rational APPLY to PROSECUTORIAL ACTS and PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY?
      "But that judgment could not affect the truth or falsity of the factual statements themselves. Testifying about facts is the function of the witness, not of the lawyer. No matter how brief or succinct it may be, the evidentiary component of an application for an arrest warrant is a distinct and essential predicate for a finding of probable cause. Even when the person who makes the constitutionally required "Oath or affirmation" is a lawyer, the only function that she performs in giving sworn testimony is that of a witness."  LYNNE KALINA, PETITIONER v. RODNEY FLETCHER, No. 96-792. (1997)
      Such as when the DISTRICT ATTORNEY SWEARS to things they have no PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of as a COMPLAINANT rather than simply VERIFYING a SWORN COMPLAINT?
      PC 740.  Except as otherwise provided by law, all  misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant.  Such complaint may be verified on information and belief.
      Patrick in California
       
      "If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help." – John F. Kennedy
       
      --- In teaparty@yahoogroups.com, "Alisa" <polhigh45@y...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Chuck Conces wrote:
      >
      > "Frankly, I don't think many lawyers even know about judicial notice
      > and trial by ambush. If Cindy had spent 3 months learning this stuff
      > (instead of maritime law), she could have made sure that they were
      > done and court rules upheld. Did the defendants even know that the
      > rules are rules of reason and that a judge can be challenged
      > jurisdictionally if he refuses to follow court rules?"
      >
      > I thought Cindy had a lawyer? Aren't lawyers supposed to know about
      > judicial notice and trial by ambush?  Do we have to be a lawyer
      > before hiring a lawyer? Do we have to be a mechanic before hiring a
      > mechanic?  Do we have to be a doctor before hiring a doctor?  I
      > guess we do we in today's world if we don't want to get ripped off.
      >
      > Did the Judge ever rule on Irwin's subject matter jurisdiction
      > matter? What ever happened with that?
      >
      >
      > From "Right-Way Law" Materials:
      >
      > Judge's Ministerial Duty
      >
      > Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the judge cannot
      > summarily rule upon it.  The Supreme Court has continually said that
      > a court, which summarily overrules or bypasses, or goes on after the
      > jurisdictional challenge, IS A COURT WITHOUT JURISICTION.  Summarily
      > means right now by them, MINISTERIALLY if you want to look at it
      > that way.
      >
      > 95% OF WHAT A JUDGE DOES IS MINISTERIAL.  When the court has only
      > one set of facts and case law, statutes of constitutional issues
      > before it, and the opposing party does not respond – the court
      > cannot ignore the jurisdictional challenge and summarily overrule it
      > or just continue. If the court does act summarily, the accused
      > cannot just sit there and simply let them beat him up.  He has to
      > constantly object orally and in writing. He has to set the record
      > that the judgment is void and the judge cannot summarily over that
      > issue.
      >
      > THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.  When the court is
      > noticed of void and judge continues the case by conversing with you
      > back and forth getting you to proceed, tell him to STOP, because the
      > court is practicing law from the bench. 
      >
      > Your honor, "I'm kind of new to this and I know that this court
      > doesn't have SUBJECT MATTER, and I'd like to know if you are
      > PRACTICING LAW FROM THE BENCH. WOULDN'T IT BE APPROPRIATE IF I HAVE
      > RASIED THE CHALLENGE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICITON, FOR THE
      > PROSECUTOR TO STOP PLAYING WITH HIS YO-YO AND SAY SOMETHING?"
      >
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Before that, they fail to require oaths of office as shown by their state constitution. Which comes first? ... Really immediate disqualification happens
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:28 AM, <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:

        > I think a lot of people are missing the boat by not demanding JUDICIAL
        > NOTICE as shown by the CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE.

        Before that, they fail to require oaths of office as shown by their
        state constitution. Which comes first?

        >> Arguing the PROSECUTION'S POSITION and then GRANTING their MOTIONS
        >> definitely sounds "practicing law from the bench" to me and it
        >> appears to be a clear ABUSE of DISCRETION and a SHOWING of BIAS which
        >> at the very least is CAUSE for immediate DISQUALIFICATION.

        Really immediate disqualification happens long before that point is
        reached, hopefully with paper in hand as the black-robed actor comes
        into the room and hasn't had a chance to say anything yet.

        > And that is great point about the NATURE of the JUDGE'S ACTS, since
        > the NATURE of the ACT is determined by it's CHARACTER, not the
        > CHARACTER of the AGENT.

        Calling a horse a zebra doesn't make him a zebra. No stripes, no
        zebra. No oath, no judge, no matter how much you might want one.

        >> "It was insisted during the argument on behalf of the petitioner that
        >> Congress cannot punish a State judge for his official acts; and it
        >> was assumed that Judge Cole, in selecting the jury as he did, was
        >> performing a judicial act.

        Non-judges cannot perform official acts, and even when portrayed on TV,
        they are not real.
      • chemelt
        ... Ok Froggie, You seem to have simplified this whole process (in your mind) and totally ignored the civil side of courts for instance family court .
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

          > Non-judges cannot perform official acts, and even when portrayed on TV,
          > they are not real.
          >


          Ok Froggie,

          You seem to have simplified this whole process (in your mind) and
          totally ignored the "civil" side of "courts" for instance "family
          court". Now before you excuse this "family court" as one that you
          would not be hauled into because you haven't married anyone or had a
          child with anyone, I would like to hear how one would use
          "disqualification" when the other party is NOT the state but a natural
          person.

          Lets take an example that is near and dear to my heart as it happened
          to me just recently.

          My ex husband brought a "contempt" action on me for failing to abide
          by a "void" order. He conveniently failed to personally serve me with
          notice or give me notice in any way that there was a "hearing". NOT
          being aware of the "hearing" i didn't show up. I was then "arrested"
          and thrown in jail for "failure to appear" at a hearing i wasn't told
          about.

          Now I demanded proof of qualifications and threated the "cop" with
          arresting him for impersonation of an officer but as he told me he had
          a "signed arrest warrant" and proceeded to forcibly take me "into
          custody". NOw what am i suppose to "sue" the cop? Swear out an
          criminal complaint? Doesn't matter i was thrown in jail and my
          dignity and time can not be given back to me.

          Tell me how YOU would have stopped these "cops" from taking possession
          of you and throwing you in the greybar hotel. And please be specific
          how you would have "stopped" a big ass cop from taking you when as he
          told me - "I have a signed arrest warrant for you"????
        • Advancepum@aol.com
          I d go after my X for false arrest he was the instigator of the action and was the reason for you re not being there, so he is liable for your false arrest. In
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I'd go after my X for false arrest he was the instigator of the action and was the reason for you're not being there, so he is liable for your false arrest.

            In a message dated 2/5/2006 4:09:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, carolhemelt@... writes:

            Now I demanded proof of qualifications and threated the "cop" with
            arresting him for impersonation of an officer but as he told me he had
            a "signed arrest warrant" and proceeded to forcibly take me "into
            custody".  NOw what am i suppose to "sue" the cop?  Swear out an
            criminal complaint?  Doesn't matter i was thrown in jail and my
            dignity and time can not be given back to me.


          • moishanb
            Chemelt, Frog Farmer has been at this for quite some time. Being newly informed myself, I may have an easier way of describing the same things Frog Farmer is
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 6, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Chemelt,

              Frog Farmer has been at this for quite some time. Being newly
              informed myself, I may have an easier way of describing the same
              things Frog Farmer is doing and saying. First of all, your question
              of how to keep a big cop from arresting you:

              1) If they really want to, there is no way to stop them. It's not
              a question of can they? It's a question of may they? No they may
              not, but only if you know your rights. Your rights are whatever you
              want them to be. But if you don't know that, you have none. For
              instance, if the so called warrant does not have a signed affidavit,
              and was not issued by a valid judge(with an oath on the record, and
              had a licence for the year most prior to becoming a judge, and had a
              verified complaint, signed under the penalty of perjury, with
              personal knowledge of some law broken, and if that law civil, a
              breach of contract, or if criminal, some harm came to that person,
              etc, etc, etc,.) You have a right to question everything, and make
              the proponenet of the rule prove everything. This is totally
              against everything we've been taught in public schooling, and for
              most of us, what was taught by our parents.....never question
              authority, the government is always right, etc., etc., etc.,.

              2) While they can do anything they want, they can also be held
              accountable, and that means suing the cop, the judge, the CITY
              (corporation), and the insurance carrier for any of these so-called
              officers of the corporation. I feel this is the most effective way
              to correct the problem with these people. Hit'em in the pocket
              books.

              It has been a complete change in thinking for me, and has to be for
              anyone going about claiming their "god given rights". No matter
              what you situation, it's all about contracts, and if you make them
              them prove everything, they are doomed. There basis of operation is
              fear, sprinkeled with fear, boiled in fear, baked in fear, clothed
              in fear, charading with fear. Once you stop showing fear, they
              can't operate.

              Most people I come across want the silver bullet for "their specific
              situation". Every situation is the same, they get their authority
              from us. We have to agree with them in order for them to operate.
              It's called guilt. Once you figure out the 10 basic rules in life,
              the police/judges/lawmakers aka excutive/judicial/legislative
              corporations are out of business. Those 10 basic rules are the 10
              commandments.

              Hope you can be reeducated by the truth
              moisha>
              > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@>
              wrote:
              >
              > > Non-judges cannot perform official acts, and even when portrayed
              on TV,
              > > they are not real.
              > >
              >
              >
              > Ok Froggie,
              >
              > You seem to have simplified this whole process (in your mind) and
              > totally ignored the "civil" side of "courts" for instance "family
              > court". Now before you excuse this "family court" as one that you
              > would not be hauled into because you haven't married anyone or had
              a
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Where do YOU process it?? ... I have?? So far, nobody s addressed it with me, and my own experience is such that none of my fellows has had a reason to
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 7, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Feb 4, 2006, at 8:55 AM, chemelt wrote:

                > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
                > wrote:
                >
                >> Non-judges cannot perform official acts, and even when portrayed on
                >> TV,
                >> they are not real.
                >>
                >
                >
                > Ok Froggie,
                >
                > You seem to have simplified this whole process (in your mind)

                Where do YOU process it??

                > and
                > totally ignored the "civil" side of "courts"

                I have?? So far, nobody's addressed it with me, and my own experience
                is such that none of my fellows has had a reason to sue me yet.

                > for instance "family court".

                Where is this? California's "family court"?

                > Now before you excuse this "family court" as one that you
                > would not be hauled into because you haven't married anyone or had a
                > child with anyone,

                Hey, I'm still a member of a "family". Does "family court" administer
                families the way "traffic court" administers traffic matters? I travel
                and am a family member, all without a "court" to administer me!

                > I would like to hear how one would use
                > "disqualification" when the other party is NOT the state but a natural
                > person.

                First of all, with me, the "other party" has never been "the state".
                So with that fact clarified, I guess your question is, "does it matter
                who the other party is when one is considering using the process of
                disqualification?" Well, not if you didn't forget who was getting
                disqualified - it's the same person(s).

                > Lets take an example that is near and dear to my heart as it happened
                > to me just recently.
                > My ex husband brought a "contempt" action on me for failing to abide
                > by a "void" order.

                Let's see what we can safely assume with just that much information.
                You had already been in court. You did not disqualify anyone at that
                time. You permitted an order to be issued. You think it was void (and
                it most likely was). You didn't abide by it.

                > He conveniently failed to personally serve me with
                > notice or give me notice in any way that there was a "hearing".

                You had a case file going and were not yet in the habit of looking at
                the docket every Friday in order to see changes made, things added,
                things removed. It's amazing what one sees when one looks.

                > NOT
                > being aware of the "hearing" i didn't show up. I was then "arrested"
                > and thrown in jail for "failure to appear" at a hearing i wasn't told
                > about.
                >
                > Now

                Now when? As you're sitting in your cell? After you bailed out?
                After the hearing??
                Now means when? Does it just mean "later on..."

                > I demanded proof of qualifications

                That isn't how it's done. I hope you have the list of names of the
                people who qualifications you want to examine. What am I saying!? By
                now you've already gotten the necessary documents, right?

                > and threated the "cop" with
                > arresting him for impersonation of an officer

                Making threats is against the law here. What was your probable cause
                for the arrest if you hadn't done any prior research on the people in
                your area? See, I have a complete file full of certified official
                evidence.

                > but as he told me he had
                > a "signed arrest warrant" and proceeded to forcibly take me "into
                > custody".

                Did you ask to read it? What was the name on the bottom? If you
                decided not to read it, why? I need to know your answers to my
                questions, so I can better understand your strategy.

                > NOw what am i suppose to "sue" the cop?

                I guess it all depends. Why are you still calling him a cop and not
                George Lopez or Murray Cunningham? And since you haven't told me
                anything about the warrant being a false one (like they like to play
                with here) I guess you knew it carried some weight.

                > Swear out an
                > criminal complaint?

                For? Impersonation requires some evidence. If you get some, by all
                means, feel free to use it!

                > Doesn't matter i was thrown in jail and my
                > dignity and time can not be given back to me.

                So true. One day unlawfully confined can be worth over $75,000. Of
                course you'll have to sue to get it. I prefer to avoid jail time by
                refusing to waive even one little right for any cause or reason.

                But the next time I find myself in such a situation, I'd be taking
                names and getting the names of potential witnesses all the time. I'd
                be coaching all of them on just what they'd be asked to testify to in
                court. And in those boring times in between meals, I'd be teaching
                others how to throw wrenches into gears, such as by telling them about
                real arraignments.

                > Tell me how YOU would have stopped these "cops" from taking possession
                > of you and throwing you in the greybar hotel.

                It isn't that I "stop" them, it's that I convince them that it would
                not be such a good idea. It might be "career altering". I haven't been
                in the local jail yet, with over a quarter century of notoriety under
                my belt. In fact, maybe I might be in the mood for a trip there just
                for fun and another income opportunity. I do have one student who
                followed my methods and was actually thrown out of jail several times
                with no paperwork, and several times was taken to the door of the jail
                and released with no papers.

                > And please be specific
                > how you would have "stopped" a big ass cop from taking you when as he
                > told me - "I have a signed arrest warrant for you"????

                I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but cannot just anyone "bounty
                hunt" anyone with a signed arrest warrant?
                If I had the paperwork and the time, maybe I could have taken you in.
                Does it matter how big the cop's ass was?

                Let me clarify something else for you. In all the discussions I've
                ever had on any of these topics, I don't think I've ever addressed how
                to handle it when they have a real warrant, because it's NEVER BEEN AN
                ISSUE!
                They usually DON'T have warrants! But if ANYONE were to show me an
                arrest warrant for me, and I determined it was not a fake, I'd go with
                them to straighten it out. I don't want to be shot as an escaping
                prisoner! BUT, here, in "real life" I _KNOW_ what the signatures of
                all the judges who can sign warrants look like. And if I KNOW that the
                person representing themselves as an officer is an impersonator, I
                would make sure that any witnesses heard that what was happening was a
                "mutual citizens arrest" - I am arresting HIM while he is arresting ME.
                Since only a judge can decide who is to be released, we must BOTH be
                jailed waiting for the hearing within 72 hours. If the jailer let's
                the impersonator go and keeps me, then he becomes an accomplice (and he
                probably already is one anyway). No matter what, the county employees
                have 72 hours to get me in front of a judge or let me go. And I see
                only one of those options as a possibility.

                In your case, you waived rights a long time ago and are now paying the
                price for it. If you had disqualified that judge first thing, he might
                not have been around to issue any orders.

                And another clue: Even if I had two wives and six children, no "family
                court" would ever have any jurisdiction over any of MY family.

                I hope this helps.

                Regards,

                FF
              • gary
                I ll agree that those alleging themselves to be police, prosecutors and judges can pretty much do what they want even though they legally don t have the
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 7, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'll agree that those alleging themselves to be police, prosecutors and judges can pretty much do what they want even though they legally don't have the authority.  The problem comes when they do it and you want to make them pay for having done it. 
                   
                  Frog Farmer, who I have great respect for, talks about the paycheck collector not wanting to risk his career if challanged.  How would this career busting be done?  Careers are ended by higher authorities but, are there any QUALIFIED higher authorities?  Who will hear your complaint?  If you find someone who is actually qualified, will he expose the whole system of fraud and let the world know most of the police, prosecutors and judges do not really hold their office?  I'd guess, no.
                   
                  You speak of suing the police, the city, etc., etc.  Last I heard, in order to sue somebody you have to go to court.  If you go to court, you will need to find a qualified clerk to file your complaint and a qualified judge to hear the case.  Where will you find these qualified people?  I have to go with what FF has said in the past, that there are no qualified people where he lives.  Perhaps there are some where you live and just maybe you can convince them to bring down the system.
                   
                  For FF and others who use this with success, it may be that the pretenders are not really sure that nothing can be done about them.
                   
                  I would appreciate anyone telling me how they would go about holding the pretenders accountable.
                   
                  Gary
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: moishanb
                  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:28 AM
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Court rules and procedures

                  Chemelt,


                  1)  If they really want to, there is no way to stop them.  It's not
                  a question of can they?  It's a question of may they?  No they may
                  not, but only if you know your rights.  Your rights are whatever you
                  want them to be.  But if you don't know that, you have none.  For
                  instance, if the so called warrant does not have a signed affidavit,
                  and was not issued by a valid judge(with an oath on the record, and
                  had a licence for the year most prior to becoming a judge, and had a
                  verified complaint, signed under the penalty of perjury, with
                  personal knowledge of some law broken, and if that law civil, a
                  breach of contract, or if criminal, some harm came to that person,
                  etc, etc, etc,.)  You have a right to question everything, and make
                  the proponenet of the rule prove everything.  This is totally
                  against everything we've been taught in public schooling, and for
                  most of us, what was taught by our parents.....never question
                  authority, the government is always right, etc., etc., etc.,. 

                  2)  While they can do anything they want, they can also be held
                  accountable, and that means suing the cop, the judge, the CITY
                  (corporation), and the insurance carrier for any of these so-called
                  officers of the corporation.  I feel this is the most effective way
                  to correct the problem with these people.  Hit'em in the pocket
                  books.

                • Frog Farmer
                  ... I think that s part of the problem - too many people agree to that when it just isn t so. Notice how in your mind, they still have those unearned titles.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Feb 7, 2006, at 7:16 AM, gary wrote:

                    > I'll agree that those alleging themselves to be police, prosecutors
                    > and judges can pretty much do what they want even though they legally
                    > don't have the authority. 

                    I think that's part of the problem - too many people agree to that when
                    it just isn't so. Notice how in your mind, they still have those
                    unearned titles. They don't hold them in mine.

                    > How would this career busting be done?  Careers are ended by higher
                    > authorities but, are there any QUALIFIED higher authorities?  Who will
                    > hear your complaint? 

                    Why can you see this working for your adversary but not for you? I got
                    a cop to resign and move away once. I had him served, and as the
                    process server walked away from the house, a neighbor asked what it was
                    about and the server said, "child abuse". He never showed in response
                    to the subpoena - he had already moved to Florida. I once made up a
                    wanted poster for one guy I had it in for. He ran to Salt Lake City.

                    > If you find someone who is actually qualified, will he expose the
                    > whole system of fraud and let the world know most of the police,
                    > prosecutors and judges do not really hold their office?  I'd guess,
                    > no.

                    And who would expect one person to do anything? Face it - America is
                    over, just like the USSR. I'm not running around looking for anyone
                    qualified - I'm living my life. I don't care what mass delusion is
                    currently popular.

                    > You speak of suing the police, the city, etc., etc. 

                    I don't.

                    > Last I heard, in order to sue somebody you have to go to court. 

                    For just that reason. And besides, I have quite a bit of influence
                    with the local militia and posse commitatus. I had quite a few offers
                    to "wipe out" the people who smashed my skull.

                    > If you go to court, you will need to find a qualified clerk to file
                    > your complaint and a qualified judge to hear the case.  Where will you
                    > find these qualified people? 

                    Right! So just remember that next time any of them try to mess with
                    you.

                    > I have to go with what FF has said in the past, that there are no
                    > qualified people where he lives.  Perhaps there are some where you
                    > live and just maybe you can convince them to bring down the system.

                    Don't waste your time trying to bring down the system - it's already in
                    free fall.

                    > For FF and others who use this with success, it may be that the
                    > pretenders are not really sure that nothing can be done about them.

                    Oh, lots can be done - by those with a little imagination!
                     
                    > I would appreciate anyone telling me how they would go about holding
                    > the pretenders accountable.

                    As soon as I find any with the moxie to continue after being warned,
                    I'll let you know. Here's what I find hard to understand - I can think
                    of many ways to thwart these folks, one step at a time, but the general
                    tenor seems to be to surrender, that all is hopeless. Like poker,
                    it's all in the psychology.

                    >  
                  • gary
                    ... From: Frog Farmer To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Court rules and
                    Message 9 of 12 , Feb 8, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:12 AM
                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Court rules and procedures


                      On Feb 7, 2006, at 7:16 AM, gary wrote:

                      > I'll agree that those alleging themselves to be police, prosecutors
                      > and judges can pretty much do what they want even though they legally
                      > don't have the authority. 

                      I think that's part of the problem - too many people agree to that when
                      it just isn't so.
                       
                      ****Who will stop them and how?
                        Notice how in your mind, they still have those
                      unearned titles.  They don't hold them in mine.
                      ****The "titles" are only so we know who we are talking about.

                      >  How would this career busting be done?  Careers are ended by higher
                      > authorities but, are there any QUALIFIED higher authorities?  Who will
                      > hear your complaint? 

                      Why can you see this working for your adversary but not for you?  I got
                      a cop to resign and move away once.  I had him served, and as the
                      process server walked away from the house, a neighbor asked what it was
                      about and the server said, "child abuse".
                       
                      **** Are you saying you falsely accused someone of child abuse?  Or, if the charge was true, what has this to do with being an impersonator?  BTW, did you use impersonators to get that subpoena?
                       
                        He never showed in response
                      to the subpoena - he had already moved to Florida.  I once made up a
                      wanted poster for one guy I had it in for.  He ran to Salt Lake City.
                       
                      Wanted for what and why would he bother to run away?  I seem to remember a few years ago some malitia people in Monatana made wanted posters for some judges.  I believe they went to prison but since those who put them there were merely pretenders, I guess they are not really in prison.

                      >  If you find someone who is actually qualified, will he expose the
                      > whole system of fraud and let the world know most of the police,
                      > prosecutors and judges do not really hold their office?  I'd guess,
                      > no.

                      And who would expect one person to do anything?  Face it - America is
                      over, just like the USSR.  I'm not running around looking for anyone
                      qualified - I'm living my life.  I don't care what mass delusion is
                      currently popular.
                       
                      **** Ah, so it is you who will punish the impersonators, right?  What if they ignore the fact that they don't have proper oaths and go ahead with what ever trial they wish to hold?  Or are you saying they wouldn't dare because "someone" might punish them?

                      > You speak of suing the police, the city, etc., etc. 

                      I don't.
                       
                      *** I didn't say that Frog Farmer did, that was addressed to the writer of the message I was replying to.

                      >  Last I heard, in order to sue somebody you have to go to court. 

                      For just that reason.  And besides, I have quite a bit of influence
                      with the local militia and posse commitatus.  I had quite a few offers
                      to "wipe out" the people who smashed my skull.
                       
                      **** What has this to do with the impersonators?  As I remember you telling the story, your skull was smashed by local drug dealers.

                      >  If you go to court, you will need to find a qualified clerk to file
                      > your complaint and a qualified judge to hear the case.  Where will you
                      > find these qualified people? 

                      Right!  So just remember that next time any of them try to mess with
                      you.
                       
                      *** And if they do mess with you, you'll do what?


                      >  I have to go with what FF has said in the past, that there are no
                      > qualified people where he lives.  Perhaps there are some where you
                      > live and just maybe you can convince them to bring down the system.

                      Don't waste your time trying to bring down the system - it's already in
                      free fall.

                      > For FF and others who use this with success, it may be that the
                      > pretenders are not really sure that nothing can be done about them.

                      Oh, lots can be done - by those with a little imagination!
                       
                      > I would appreciate anyone telling me how they would go about holding
                      > the pretenders accountable.

                      As soon as I find any with the moxie to continue after being warned,
                      I'll let you know.  Here's what I find hard to understand - I can think
                      of many ways to thwart these folks, one step at a time, but the general
                      tenor seems to be to surrender, that all is hopeless.   Like poker,
                      it's all in the psychology.
                       
                      **** The psychology of poker is all based on bluff.  In this situation it would appear that the impersonators are bluffing that they hold their alleged office and you are bluffing that you can actually do something about it if they don't.  As with poker, there are not a great many masters of the bluff and most of those who play poker will never be any good at it.  I know a man who is big in the anti-tax movement who was once held at gun point by a very nervous young officer whose hand was shaking.  The man got that officer to hand him his gun "before someone got hurt".  I wouldn't advise most people to try that.
                       
                      Gary
                       
                       
                       
                        





                      __________ NOD32 1.1398 (20060207) Information __________

                      This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System.
                      http://www.nod32.com
                    • chemelt
                      Frog Farmer, As you didn t have all the information you were bound to make assumptions. However, your assumptions aren t always correct. My point with the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Feb 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Frog Farmer,

                        As you didn't have all the information you were bound to make
                        assumptions. However, your assumptions aren't always correct.

                        My point with the "other side" being a natural person and not the
                        "state" was to point out that an ex spouse may be a bit more
                        persistant than a lazy and stupid "state prosecutor" who may give up
                        after seeing his case become too difficult for him.

                        The other point was that I have been challenging "bona fides" and
                        jurisdiction of these "courts", "Judges", "cops" etc. (now before you
                        go jumping all over me notice these terms are in "quotes" which to ME
                        means that is what people call them not what i belive them to be).
                        BUT even though i have challenged (maybe not correctly I suppose) but
                        challenged nontheless (and yes i have gone to the Secretary of the
                        State and gotton "credentials" for these people but not on every tom
                        dick and harry who thinks he is a cop, sherrif, etc in the whole darn
                        state - my bad).

                        My challenges get me nowhere and still the pretender who thinks he is
                        a "judge" just signs "orders" that the other party then proceeds to
                        "enforce" those "orders". Heck i have been challenging them for three
                        years on their own jurisdictional statutes which they refuse to follow
                        so it is no surprise to me that they would refuse to ackknowledge or
                        abide by any constitutional requirements (oaths and bonds).

                        Frog Farmer wrote>>
                        > Let's see what we can safely assume with just that much information.
                        > You had already been in court. You did not disqualify anyone at that
                        > time. You permitted an order to be issued. You think it was void (and
                        > it most likely was). You didn't abide by it.


                        Wrong "presumption", I did "disqualify them" but it got me nowhere
                        they just kept on going as if nothing had happened. How can i
                        "permit" an order to be entered? How could one STOP an order from
                        being entered??

                        I know what my rights are and i don't knowingly waive them. However,
                        I have yet to see (although i am certain that you have perfected such)
                        any "official" person anywhere give a damn about rights, the law,
                        procedure, rules, requirements to hold their office, etc. They are
                        stupid and arrogant. What are you going to do sue them? Yea right
                        and they know you will never get anywhere with that.

                        I could go on and on about your presumptions (mostly false) but it
                        wouldn't matter. The bottom line is while your "method" may work for
                        you, when it doesn't work (for us less f------) there is no recourse
                        as there are no "courts" to get redress from anymore.

                        thanks
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... Oh, okay, because for most people that s not how it is - they still continue to address those same people using those same titles. ... No, I m not. ... It
                        Message 11 of 12 , Feb 9, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Feb 8, 2006, at 8:54 AM, gary wrote:
                          >> ****The "titles" are only so we know who we are talking about.

                          Oh, okay, because for most people that's not how it is - they still
                          continue to address those same people using those same titles.

                          >> **** Are you saying you falsely accused someone of child abuse?

                          No, I'm not.

                          >>   Or, if the charge was true, what has this to do with being an
                          >> impersonator? 

                          It wasn't a charge - it was two words permitting a neighbor to make a
                          conclusion of his own, and I wasn't there at all.

                          >> BTW, did you use impersonators to get that subpoena?

                          I don't know as I do not check out anyone who doesn't bother me. They
                          probably were impersonators, but most likely acting in ignorance.

                          >> Wanted for what and why would he bother to run away? 

                          They were for fraud. Could it be he was guilty?

                          >> I seem to remember a few years ago some malitia people in Monatana
                          >> made wanted posters for some judges.  I believe they went to prison
                          >> but since those who put them there were merely pretenders, I guess
                          >> they are not really in prison.

                          That's a cute response. And irrelevent to my situation. And were they
                          specificly charged with making posters?

                          >> **** Ah, so it is you who will punish the impersonators, right? 

                          I didn't say that either.

                          >> What if they ignore the fact that they don't have proper oaths

                          They already ignore it. It doesn't change anything.

                          >> and go ahead with what ever trial they wish to hold? 

                          I think you are imagining a wider conspriacy than really exists. Do
                          you imagine they hold meetings to discuss their plans? Do they vote in
                          such meetings, or do they leave those major decisions to a ring-leader?

                          And EVEN IF they were to ALL be lawfully sworn, I can STILL beat them,
                          because when I DID beat them, I didn't know anything about this oath
                          stuff. That came to me later.

                          >> Or are you saying they wouldn't dare because "someone" might punish
                          >> them?

                          I'm saying that in my real experience, they've failed to do so yet.

                          >>
                          >> **** What has this to do with the impersonators?  As I remember you
                          >> telling the story, your skull was smashed by local drug dealers.

                          The drug dealers were "CRI"s. They were not on an official mission,
                          they were freelancing for Christmas presents for their families
                          according to the word on the street. The point I was making was that I
                          am not without options for action.
                           
                          >> *** And if they do mess with you, you'll do what?

                          I'll make them wish they hadn't. But they quit messing with me years
                          ago, and not because I moved or ran away. My options are numerous, my
                          point was that most people don't think they have any.

                          >> **** The psychology of poker is all based on bluff. 

                          It helps to have the cards too.

                          >> In this situation it would appear that the impersonators are
                          >> bluffing that they hold their alleged office

                          Most have no clue and are surprised when shown the truth.

                          >> and you are bluffing that you can actually do something about it if
                          >> they don't. 

                          What I can do very well, and better than most, is to act as though they
                          are my equals, and as if I am not of a lower caste than they are
                          ("subject").

                          >> As with poker, there are not a great many masters of the bluff and
                          >> most of those who play poker will never be any good at it.

                          Today I'm net ahead in poker by over $10,000, and I'm even net ahead on
                          slot machines. I started playing slots two years ago, and my first
                          poker game was last June.

                          >>   I know a man who is big in the anti-tax movement who was once held
                          >> at gun point by a very nervous young officer whose hand was shaking. 
                          >> The man got that officer to hand him his gun "before someone got
                          >> hurt".  I wouldn't advise most people to try that.

                          Most would not advise handling rattlesnakes either, but I've handled
                          mine thousands of times. Impersonating paycheck anticipators are no
                          sweat in comparison.

                          My only comment is that you seem to be coming at this from the losing
                          side, instead of trying to see how you can be on the winning side.

                          I use facts that I know. Try to put some together to benefit you
                          instead of trying to figure out how your adversaries can win.
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... We re [blessed] that the law is the law for everyone. ... Did you file the paperwork for disqualifying the people in a timely manner, or did you not do it
                          Message 12 of 12 , Feb 9, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:35 AM, chemelt wrote:
                            > My point with the "other side" being a natural person and not the
                            > "state" was to point out that an ex spouse may be a bit more
                            > persistant than a lazy and stupid "state prosecutor" who may give up
                            > after seeing his case become too difficult for him.

                            We're [blessed] that the law is the law for everyone.

                            > The other point was that I have been challenging "bona fides" and
                            > jurisdiction of these "courts", "Judges", "cops" etc. (now before you
                            > go jumping all over me notice these terms are in "quotes" which to ME
                            > means that is what people call them not what i belive them to be).
                            > BUT even though i have challenged (maybe not correctly I suppose) but
                            > challenged nontheless

                            Did you file the paperwork for disqualifying the people in a timely
                            manner, or did you not do it and then ACT like they were not
                            disqualified because they ACTED as if they were not disqualifed?

                            > (and yes i have gone to the Secretary of the
                            > State

                            This must mean you already knew HE was qualified....

                            > and gotton "credentials" for these people but not on every tom
                            > dick and harry who thinks he is a cop, sherrif, etc in the whole darn
                            > state - my bad).

                            No, not "your bad" (as if you could possess an adjective!!) - but you
                            CAN get them on all the cops and sheriffs in your city and county.
                            They might even have a website showing you who they all are. Have you
                            looked?

                            > My challenges get me nowhere and still the pretender who thinks he is
                            > a "judge" just signs "orders" that the other party then proceeds to
                            > "enforce" those "orders".

                            How many orders have YOU signed? Have you ever thought of removing
                            your case to United States Court?

                            > Heck i have been challenging them for three
                            > years on their own jurisdictional statutes which they refuse to follow
                            > so it is no surprise to me that they would refuse to ackknowledge or
                            > abide by any constitutional requirements (oaths and bonds).

                            This seems backwards to me - you've been at them for three years, yet
                            just now challenging their oaths and bonds? It should have been the
                            other way around, first things first, because proceeding to step three
                            or four assumes one has succeeded in steps one and two.

                            > Wrong "presumption", I did "disqualify them" but it got me nowhere
                            > they just kept on going as if nothing had happened.

                            I have the feeling that nothing really happened, that you did not go
                            through any formal disqualification procedures, that you never filed
                            paper to that effect, and that you probably continued to call people
                            "your honor" "judge" and "officer".

                            > How can i "permit" an order to be entered?

                            By failing to point out in the record that it was void from its
                            inception for the following reasons.

                            > How could one STOP an order from
                            > being entered??

                            By disqualifying the people able to make the order before they make the
                            order. This requires a plan ahead of time.

                            > I know what my rights are and i don't knowingly waive them. However,
                            > I have yet to see (although i am certain that you have perfected such)
                            > any "official" person anywhere give a damn about rights, the law,
                            > procedure, rules, requirements to hold their office, etc.

                            I have not perfected anyone. And I don't care what anyone else thinks.
                            I'm ready to take on anyone who wants trouble. I'd rather not and
                            have a nice day, but I don't back down anymore.

                            > They are
                            > stupid and arrogant. What are you going to do sue them? Yea right
                            > and they know you will never get anywhere with that.

                            How can I sue them? I suppose I could in the one supreme Court, but
                            as I said, I've been able to avoid the necessity of doing so by
                            persuasion and other more mainstream tactics, many of which are
                            published in their very own codes that they say they follow. As I said
                            before, I can beat them even if they did have their own papers in
                            order. But they do not, and I see no reason to waive that fact
                            anymore.

                            > I could go on and on about your presumptions (mostly false) but it
                            > wouldn't matter.

                            Then don't ask me for answers if you cannot answer mine. If you argue
                            with them like you argue with me, you will lose. You say my
                            presumptions were mostly false, but you didn't say which were right or
                            wrong. This means to me that you are not serious in finding answers to
                            your questions. If you know I am wrong and you are right, why is it
                            you having the troubles?

                            > The bottom line is while your "method" may work for
                            > you, when it doesn't work (for us less f------) there is no recourse
                            > as there are no "courts" to get redress from anymore.

                            If you weren't so negative, I might have gone out of my way to help
                            you, but you are self-sabotaging and for you to imagine that only I am
                            able to exercise and defend the rights of an American today is a far
                            stretch of the imagination. There are at least 5 more like me in my
                            county alone, and many more around my state, and many more in many
                            other states.

                            > thanks

                            You're welcome.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.