Hundredth Monkey - USA Vacates Prosecution!

[martin earl]

I received another comment about how belligerent this particular Libel of Review was. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

Well, "they" are the ones who set the standard with: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohiohttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242#) App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

[David Merrill]

Well, "they" are the ones who set the standard with: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohiohttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242#) App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

That would explain why Fred and Mark seem to be standing on the abatement (Page 106) as sound:

7. Write across all pages of abandoned paper in upper and lower case letters, "Refused for Cause without Dishonor and without Recourse to Me.' Place all abandoned papers in back of the Asseveration.

That last "appearance" by Fred was before Christmas. It would seem they have confidence in the abatement and its success is evidenced by all counts being "Terminated".

[mikecz]

That would explain why Fred and Mark seem to be standing on the abatement (Page 106) as sound:



That last "appearance" by Fred was before Christmas. It would seem they have confidence in the abatement and its success is evidenced by all counts being "Terminated".

David,

So the significance of this case and it's application to the lawful money remedy is over my head. Please break down the timeline in laymans terms. I do understand your point about critical mass, others using your forms and/or methods successfully, but it is difficult to get through all the legal jibber jab...

Also, to vacate charges. I'm just trying to know what Fred did, how he defended himself, how the courts responded, and what the conclusion was. I can interpret the best I can, I'm just looking for affirmation of my interpretations..

This hopefully will help others suitors new to the case.