Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Another trick courts are using re: R4C

  1. #21
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,416
    Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS today.

    I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy. It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

    Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Speaking of tricks. A friend of mine showed me THIS today.

    I heard recently that the CEO of Starbucks is pushing towards no cash policy. It won't be too long before the clerk is looking for your DL - and oh by the way, can you give me your SSN before I refill that cup. Just sign here.

    Conditioning 101. Its Convenient.


    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?

    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
    May I serve that with a Criminal Complaint?



  3. #23

    Some thoughts about your reply

    I just received an envelope from the law office of the appointed attorney. I'm not opening it. Depending on the ideas I express as you read throughout the rest of this reply, would you concur that I should refuse it as "Return to Sender improperly addressed." It's addressed to First, Middle Initial, Last name. Just checking, really. It's an offer to contract. If they try to force it on me, I'll use your suggestion: "My fee is half a million dollars if you want me to act in that capacity." Counter offer!

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw
    Might this affidavit [of Administrative Notice] be used in this instance as a prior "notice to principal is notice to agent" type thing where the gov't agencies were legally put on notice about this matter? A copy of the affidavit is attached. (Sorry for the wordpad text file; system wouldn't allow rich text format.) I ask this because of the following, which I found in my research:
    Possibly. What I see is that you are getting your mind wrapped around record forming. Get it into the Record of the muni court. It should show that it is in the record of the Administrative Agency you mentioned though - marked by them and returned or have a certificate of mailing etc.
    Yes, I have a certificate of mailing for that affidavit sent to the agencies from four years ago of which I will need to get a certified copy made so that I can preserve the original for future use.

    I'm still needing some input on this as I'm thinking of possibly entering this document (Affidavit of Administrative Notice) at a certain stage in the proceedings in order to have the judge (after I have accepted his oath) sign an Order of the court testifying to the court's recognition of the validity of this affidavit. This Order would be so I could hand out the Court Order after serving notice with the affidavit to any LEO in the future who might stop me thinking he has a citation victim.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw
    I'm not sure how a municipal court judge of no record would handle this submission. It is obviously coming from a jurisdiction (common law) foreign to his own. But when it said: It is pre-judicial and "No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof. . . can abrogate anyone's affidavit of truth," that pretty much told me that this was powerful stuff. It seems to override any government's jurisdiction. Whether or not they recognize it, though, is another story.

    Maybe obtaining the oaths of office, swearing out an affidavit of accepting the oaths of office of both the judge and prosecuting attorney, and submitting that along with the Affidavit of Administrative Notice to the court somehow (not sure whether I can just submit it into the case file or whether I need to request a Special Appearance hearing to do it). Any ideas about this?
    Yes! That sort of thing. If you have been keeping Return Receipts and such then you are keeping a record! The USDC evidence repository is a competent clerk for you to use in the cognizance of the US government.
    Yes, I have been keeping certificates of mailing (they are less expensive than return receipts on registered mail) and forming a record. I've always had my head wrapped around record forming ever since I first read your recommendation for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowLaw
    Just occurred to me: In the Court Survival Guide it mentioned a strategy to put in a Motion To Withdraw Plea "to remove your implied consent to the court's jurisdiction. By vacating your plea of Not Guilty, technically the venue and Jurisdiction is removed. So here is where you can again use the Notice of Special Visitation and of Foreign Law, and the Judicial Notice of Military Flag and Challenge of Jurisdiction. Make sure the court agrees to vacate your previous Plea, before you say anything more. Before you are required to enter a new Plea, present these 2 notices and demand the resolution of jurisdiction.
    Indeed you will screech the proceedings to a halt every time you mention, I have not been arraigned. However that continues from Square One and will land you an appointment with a court-appointed psychologist for a competency hearing. That could be deadly or destroy your mind over a traffic matter?
    Okay. I didn't have in mind to follow the Court Survival Guide's strategy exactly as it is laid out after the plea was withdrawn (filing the notices and all). The idea I meant to imply was to use this method of backing the court out of its jurisdiction, then using that opportunity to guide the judge (forming an agreement) by asking for a clarification of certain things before I enter a new plea. This is a very tricky approach, because I need make certain that the old plea has first been vacated (jurisdiction removed) before I propose the idea of needing clarification so that I can make an informed and reasonable determination about which plea I wish to enter. You see?

    For instance (to the judge), [Oh, by the way, I accept your oath and bond as binding placing you under penalty of perjury.] So, I can plead "guilty" or "nolo contendre." However, am I not entitled to understand these procedures before I undergo them? Isn't one of the duties of the court to make sure the defendant understands everything that is happening? I need some clarification about the implications of each of these pleas before I can make a reasonable determination which way I want to go. What are the differences in the legal significance of each of these pleas after the deed is done? (Let the judge make his statement.)

    Just so I understand what occurred at the arraignment, because this would affect how I might plead, I need to clarify something about that occurrence and then ask you a question about that which I still don't understand. [Now we're back at the point where I screwed up at the arraignment and didn't object after the judge's outburst about the court's jurisdiction. This is just a rough sketch of what I have in mind. I need to think about this more, to improve on the limitations I'm placing on the judge in this instance.]

    When you made your statement about jurisdiction and the statutes involved, there was nothing about what you were saying that I disagreed with, which was why I didn't object. Given the correct circumstances, of course the court must be able to establish jurisdiction over the matter before it can proceed.

    No. What I had in mind, and what I failed to bring out in that instant, was the fact that the matter had been refused for cause, which means, if I understand this correctly, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the plaintiff now has the obligation to bring verified proof of claim and enter that upon the court record. This is not the court's obligation in this instance. There is case law which states:

    HAGANS vs LAVINE (415 US 533): "Once JURISDICTION is challenged it must be proven by the Plaintiff."

    What I had in mind, but failed to communicate, because I'm not familiar with the ways of legal procedure in court, was the written established challenge to personam jurisdiction that was entered upon the record, and which the court was supposed to have cognizance of before I even entered the room. If the officer did not communicate that document to the court, then there was a fraud in the makings. And my intention was to correct that fraud. I do not see where the plaintiff has rebutted that challenge on the record with a verified complaint from a flesh and blood victim who has been injured. Isn't this a requirement in all criminal cases? That a competent witness come forward with a notarized affidavit demonstrating an injury. (Let the judge make his statement.)

    In light of these facts, I fail to see how I am able to make a plea to a non-existent case.

  4. #24
    Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.

    Write across the Letter - Return to Sender with an arrow back to his return address. Black through your address information and the light yellow barcodes. Mark clearly in red: YOU ARE NOT AND YOU NEVER WERE MY ATTORNEY!

    Take three copies (write the case# on the copies) of the letter to the post office and ask the clerk to please rounddate your three copies for evidence that you have sent that letter back to the attorney. If they want to charge you to send it back tell them that is not your name on it. [When you give somebody your name you give them power of attorney over you.]

    Take your three copies to the DA's office. Give the receptionist one and have her/him mark your two copies received, time and date with initials. Take the two marked copies to the courthouse and find the clerk. File one and get the second marked Filed.

    Now you are pro se, in the eyes of the court. The "judge" gave you a couple weeks to find an attorney or you are It, right?

    I am not going to encourage all this script because I do not believe in it. The judge will mow you down and proceed on the premise the defense attorney he is speaking with is looking for a trial, or is incompetent to defend you. If you are incompetent to stand trial you might be steered into a psychological exam.

    There is a possibility that the judges sometimes clear nuisance cases off the docket like you have said. The City will be paying $2K for that psychological exam for example. If the judge is sure that you are just a sovereign citizen then he might not want to pay for your philosophy and so you walk. But if you are just going to go back to driving around without a license, I doubt it. He has a duty to the citizens as I explained; the only way for you to get that done in Colorado is to set a $30K (last I checked many years ago) bond. If you will not be responsible for that kid on the bicycle, for breaking his arm with your car, then you cannot get this done in my opinion.

    Now let's pretend that you succeed in the billing cycle, past due notice and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.


  5. #25
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.
    A presumption of trust. He appears therefore he trusts. Meaning why would I ask anything of you IF I do not trust you? I once heard a police officer tell a young protege of mine "if you stay I am going to have to arrest you." When he asked me what I thought he should do I simply said "he is telling you if you stay seeking His Judgment, then you have placed your trust in Him making Him your Sovereign, so LEAVE." He told the PO to have a nice day and he turned and left.

    Jurisdiction perfected in Trust - He Trusts by implication of his Faith in Deed - he appears and asks for Judgment - Please, will you dismiss the charges, Please? I have wonderful arguments, if only you will hear them. The Tyrant's response: trial day is set on [insert date].

    Before we proceed, if we proceed, I have a few MORE questions.....
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Speaking from experience scripts fail. Especially with the chief judge in home rule municipal jurisdiction. All he is doing is presuming you want a day in court, a fair trial. He does not see you or hear you. He sees and hears only your attorney.
    Okay. I was thinking that they (the courts) have come up with a way to preclude that kind of thing. So, that information about Withdrawal of Plea is probably dated and not useful now. They've seen it before, and come up with a way to get around it. (Just speculating here.)

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    Write across the Letter - Return to Sender with an arrow back to his return address. Black through your address information and the light yellow barcodes. Mark clearly in red: YOU ARE NOT AND YOU NEVER WERE MY ATTORNEY!

    Take three copies (write the case# on the copies) of the letter to the post office and ask the clerk to please rounddate your three copies for evidence that you have sent that letter back to the attorney. If they want to charge you to send it back tell them that is not your name on it. [When you give somebody your name you give them power of attorney over you.]

    Take your three copies to the DA's office. Give the receptionist one and have her/him mark your two copies received, time and date with initials. Take the two marked copies to the courthouse and find the clerk. File one and get the second marked Filed.

    Now you are pro se, in the eyes of the court. The "judge" gave you a couple weeks to find an attorney or you are It, right?
    What I need to know is the procedure about this appointing an attorney. From what you just wrote, it doesn't seem as though I am locked in yet. I'm not sure the judge gave me anything of the kind with regard to finding an attorney. I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things. But perhaps you are correct. Might the Muni court have a transcript of the hearing (tape recorded, I presume) that I could apply for a copy of in forma pauperis?

    At present, I'm not sure what is the best option for me to take, so I will keep this in the background. I haven't returned the attorney's letter yet. Just marked it. Will need to ask more questions in order to better determine an answer. It may be that it's more advantageous to go through the trial, and wait for an opportunity at allocution. What do you think, given the circumstances? It seems like my best chance to get the truth on the record.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    I am not going to encourage all this script because I do not believe in it. The judge will mow you down and proceed on the premise the defense attorney he is speaking with is looking for a trial, or is incompetent to defend you. If you are incompetent to stand trial you might be steered into a psychological exam.

    There is a possibility that the judges sometimes clear nuisance cases off the docket like you have said. The City will be paying $2K for that psychological exam for example. If the judge is sure that you are just a sovereign citizen then he might not want to pay for your philosophy and so you walk. But if you are just going to go back to driving around without a license, I doubt it. He has a duty to the citizens as I explained; the only way for you to get that done in Colorado is to set a $30K (last I checked many years ago) bond. If you will not be responsible for that kid on the bicycle, for breaking his arm with your car, then you cannot get this done in my opinion.
    Yes, the bolded statement above is what I had planned to do. I believe it's $30K here in Arizona also. I've downloaded information about creating a bond; I'll have to dig it out and see if you think it will fly. It worked at one time.

    The last time I was in court for this I still had insurance on the auto. That probably had something to do with the outcome at that time. Do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    Now let's pretend that you succeed in the billing cycle, past due notice and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.
    You lost me here. I have little idea what you are talking about. I'm not familiar with the info. This would need to be explained more fully for me to understand.

    Before I read your reply above, I typed out a brief outline of the situation as it currently stands, at least as I understand it. I will post that next to see what kind of comment it draws.

  7. #27
    (Preface: My phone, and therefore Internet capability, is going to be impaired for at least another week due to the demand for repairs in my area after the storm that went through on the 9th, so I'm unable to research this at home and must find WiFi spots to connect.)

    Let me try to outline the situation as it presently stands.

    1. The Muni court judge has assumed jurisdiction based on my not having objected to his assertion of such at the arraignment.

    2. After the above mentioned occurrence in #1, the judge then accepted my papers proving "refused for cause" was properly served, because now he has jurisdiction and the papers can be ignored. The refused citation clearly shows a reservation of rights (without prejudice) signed above my First Middle signature, which the judge acknowledged after gaining jurisdiction.

    3. The judge then, over my stated objection which he recognized in court, created paperwork to appoint an attorney for me. The paperwork states that I am not to contact the attorney before Sept. 24. (So, I'm wondering if there is something I can do before then -- make motions, submit affidavits or whatever -- in an attempt to regain some personal control over the proceedings.) Does anyone know the significance of not contacting the attorney?

    4. The judge then created paper work for the setting of a trial, bypassing Preliminary Hearing and Pretrial. There's a box checked that reads: "Appear at a mandatory pretrial conference per attached notice." I'm not sure what this is in reference to. And I don't know what the "attached notice" is in reference to since there isn't any. The only papers I have are: a document stating the name address and phone number of the appointed attorney; an Order Regarding Counsel appointing the attorney; and the document ordering me to appear at trial on Nov. 27th. So, I'm not sure what this "attached notice" is in reference to.

    5. Trial was set for November 27 at 2:00 pm.

    6. Judge asked before closing the proceeding: "Do you have anything you want to say?" Not being aware (at that moment) of the opportunity to object, I missed an opportunity to object to the proceedings and withdraw consent.

    7. I was released on my own recognizance and ordered not to "drive."

    Given these circumstances, I need to know how I can proceed to endeavor to get the truth of the situation on the record, and also what I can legally do to influence the situation from this point on, seeing as an attorney has been appointed (who I have yet to see or contract with).

    Some thoughts that have occurred to me, although I don't know if I am allowed to file anything to get it on the record (even though I haven't accepted the attorney; I realize the attorney is being forced on me at this point "under protest"). I'm just putting these out to see if there is something positive I can do to begin influencing the direction of things:

    1. File an affidavit revoking power of attorney of gov't officials.

    2. File an affidavit accepting the oath of office of the judge and prosecuting attorney (supplied with certified copies of said oaths to establish a record) putting them on notice to follow their constitutional duties. (I also have an Affidavit of Administrative Notice, which was recorded and sent four years ago to the State Dept. of Transportation and the County Sheriff -- with proof by certificate of mailing -- but these would need to be recognized in a court that is superior to the inferior court with which I am presently entangled to be effective.)

    3. File a Motion to Withdraw Plea (to establish a hearing). I don't think this would do any good if I were still under the power of attorney of the attorney appointed. Am I correct in that assumption? In other words, he would be in control of any dealing with the judge at the hearing and not myself. I would not be able to ask my questions in the way and under the circumstance that I want in order to establish on the record certain facts. (David made this clear in his last reply, so this point can be disregarded.)

    4. There is something I read recently about "assistance of counsel" I believe it is called. Does anyone know anything about this and its significance?

    5. Will a notice of violation of Title 18 Sec. 241 (Conspiracy against rights) to the gov't "actors" have any effect on these actors? Or will it just cause them to fly off the handle and issue threats. (On second thought, this might not be a good idea.)

    What I'm endeavoring to determine is: what procedures am I able to use that they cannot block. If I'm unable to accomplish anything in the above list, then it seems that I have no other alternative than to endure the trial. At which point I will have an opportunity at allocution to enter testimony.

    I need some clarification about allocution and what, beyond saying "I do not consent to these proceedings," that I can bring out. I read that one can bring out defects in pleadings, at which point I can point out that I am not in receipt of a verified complaint, etc. The plaintiff has an obligation under the ruling in Hagans vs Lavine (415 US 533) to provide evidence on the record to rebut the challenge. But also that this matter was "refused for cause" at the outset, but said refusal was not recognized by the court. This would also be a good point to bring in the Affidavit of Administrative Notice recorded at the county recorder.

    Right about now, I'm feeling as though that sinking feeling has abated somewhat, and that I have a chance to set the record straight. (On second thought, maybe not.)

  8. #28
    The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.


    I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things.
    So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]

    The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite uneffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

    Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?

    What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 09-17-12 at 01:45 PM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    A presumption of trust. He appears therefore he trusts. Meaning why would I ask anything of you IF I do not trust you? I once heard a police officer tell a young protege of mine "if you stay I am going to have to arrest you." When he asked me what I thought he should do I simply said "he is telling you if you stay seeking His Judgment, then you have placed your trust in Him making Him your Sovereign, so LEAVE." He told the PO to have a nice day and he turned and left.

    Jurisdiction perfected in Trust - He Trusts by implication of his Faith in Deed - he appears and asks for Judgment - Please, will you dismiss the charges, Please? I have wonderful arguments, if only you will hear them. The Tyrant's response: trial day is set on [insert date].

    Before we proceed, if we proceed, I have a few MORE questions.....
    Your comment to your protogete shows you know how to think on your feet. Makes me wonder what the police officer thought.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.
    Okay. I'm beginning to focus in on this. This not having access to the Internet is killing me. I just spent the whole day writing a reply which I'm not going to post because I can see that it is mostly irrelevant to what you are trying to pound into my head. If I had seen your comment earlier [it's 8 PM here as I write] I wouldn't have wasted so much time accomplishing nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]
    I'm not able to sneak an audio recorder into the courtroom. (Don't even have one to begin with.) So, I'm up a creak on that. But yes, I see your point about keeping my own record. I've been hoping to do that with affidavits, to establish a record. Any chance I can use affidavits?

    Also, I haven't pulled the trigger yet on canning the appointed attorney. Just holding onto the letter they sent without opening it. I'm not sure the judge will allow me to go pro se. I need more clarity about what course of action to take and why I'm taking it.

    Had a chance to glance briefly over the Libel in Review (on the fly while composing this reply, so will need more time to study it later). That certainly looks interesting. I see why you recommend it. It gets the matter on record.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite ineffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

    Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?
    Haven't had an opportunity yet. I need all three oaths, is that correct? Won't fly with just two? Need to bring the District Attny into it? (I'm thinking out loud here; please indulge me.) The DA because that ties him to the Libel of Review? I'm just trying to understand.

    I've mostly been trying to come to some clarification about the real situation that's facing me before taking any action. That's why I've been asking so many questions. My questions have been in the vein of elimination of methods of approach, asking people's opinions, attempting to ascertain their experiences.

    I agree about the comment about allocution. But at the moment, that's the only thing that's providing me with any hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.
    I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm not sure I correctly understand. What do you mean by the term "fungible fidelity bond"? You're using terms I have no idea what you are talking about until you explain them to me.

    I presume you are referring to the following, which I still do not understand what it is or how it is created! Or how it might effect things.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill
    ...and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.
    Last edited by KnowLaw; 09-18-12 at 03:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •