The Original R4C in the modern civil era?

[eros]

[B]In attempting to get my mind arounf the R4C and how to implement it is appears Leroy & company used it as well.

Can someone help describe the difference in the latest version and any benefits herein obtained by the "new" version ?

Thanks

R.G. The son of J.S.

REFUSE3.pdf

[David Merrill]

Probably the most obvious advantage about the new process is that you don't get to die in a high security prison like Leroy Michael.


Thanks for sharing that R4C!

[eros]

Yet another R4C version

Another "R4C" with the USDC / DCUS that seems to cause consternation.

The question remains that if the R4C is refused by the courts and they proceed I show this?

"

Upon offense by hostile presentment after the inevitable default by Respondent (including all agents,
principals and any and all offensive presentments), after fair notice by refusal for cause like the above
clerk instruction a certificate of exigent circumstances will be issued pursuant to Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B)
Arrest Warrant and the clerk will immediately issue an arrest warrant for Respondent or named agent or
principal to be taken into custody for the violations of law. Presentments of any kind from Respondent
or any agent acting for the bankruptcy of the United States through the District may be considered
hostile threat of seizure."

Then I try to have the US Marshall arrest someone? This is the same US Marshal that blocks due process at every turn. At that point I hit a brick wall and say yes your honor the US Marshall is in default, can we wait a bit to see if the Marshall does his duty.

Note: I am not an adjacent provocateur nor do I represent any enterprise other than the man, myself.



R.G the son of J.S.





Note: See R4C below









Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Arivaca [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice







DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA


Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) Case No. 95-484-TUC
)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE:
)
v. ) FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b);
) 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5)
United States, )
and Does 1-99, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________)


COMES NOW Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona

state and Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter

"Plaintiff"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties

that She has refused William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15,

1996, for the following causes (refused copy attached).

Her previous NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE [cites omitted] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (hereinafter

"NOTICE OF REMOVAL") was filed with the Clerk of the "DISTRICT

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES", not with the "CLERK U S DISTRICT

COURT", as shown by the Clerk's file stamp dated "AUG 13 1996" on

said NOTICE OF REMOVAL (see copy attached). The Clerk of Court

erred by stamping Plaintiff's NOTICE OF REMOVAL in this manner.

See FRCP Rule 9(b).


Notice of Refusal for Cause:
Page 1 of 6


Furthermore, Mr. Browning is not presiding over the action

now proceeding in the District Court of the United States

("DCUS"), nor has Mr. Browning demonstrated that he has any

jurisdiction in said DCUS over the subject matter, or over the

Person of the Plaintiff, in the above entitled action. See FRCP

Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(4), and (5). Accordingly, without the

requisite jurisdiction having been demonstrated as a matter of

record, he has no authority to deny any of Plaintiff's pleadings,

motions, or demands as filed in the DCUS or in the USDC, except

to dismiss the alleged criminal action for want of jurisdiction,

as required by Law.

Mr. Browning, as an Article IV judge, is a "taxpayer" whose

compensation is diminished during his continuance in office. See

Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a). As such, Mr. Browning

cannot preside over any proceeding in a District Court of the

United States ("DCUS"), because to do so violates Article III,

Section 1, of the Constitution for the United States of America,

as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit:

The Judges ... shall ... receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

[Art. III, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, emphasis added]


The United States has never demonstrated jurisdiction, as a

matter of record, to bring any criminal case against the

Plaintiff in the United States District Court ("USDC"). On the

contrary, Plaintiff's NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (hereinafter "NOTICE AND DEMAND") and Her

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL

JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT (hereinafter "MEMORANDUM OF LAW"),

i.e. the USDC, plainly prove that the USDC, as distinct and

different from the DCUS, has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

to prosecute Plaintiff, unless the alleged crime was committed

within the federal zone. See cites in Plaintiff's NOTICE AND

DEMAND and MEMORANDUM OF LAW.


Notice of Refusal for Cause:
Page 2 of 6


Mr. Browning also claims to have "denied" two (2) separate

NOTICE's AND DEMAND's FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, filed

pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), to wit:

(d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if
requested by a party and supplied with the necessary
information.
[Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)]
[emphasis added]


Said Rule leaves no room for any judicial discretion in the

matter of the evidence submitted thereby. The language of the

terms "when mandatory" and "a court shall take judicial notice"

is indicative of their imperative meaning. Mr. Browning has no

authority whatsoever to "deny" mandatory judicial notice when

invoked pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Furthermore, as a matter of evidence, Plaintiff enjoys the

fundamental Right to incorporate by reference all prior pleadings

filed or lodged in the USDC, no matter who filed them, as if

those pleadings were set forth fully in Her NOTICE OF REMOVAL.

Plaintiff argues that, for Mr. Browning to deny this essential

evidentiary material in the above entitled action is to obstruct

justice, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1506 , to wit:

1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail

Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies,
or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other
proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any
judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect;
...
Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
[18 U.S.C. 1506]


Notice of Refusal for Cause:
Page 3 of 6


Moreover, the alleged United States Attorneys who attempted

to bring a criminal action against Plaintiff in the USDC have

failed to demonstrate on record any power of attorney to

represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] in said action; the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have not been shown on record to have

any standing to bring a criminal action before the USDC; and the

USDC has not been shown to have any criminal jurisdiction over a

crime alleged to have been committed inside the state zone (the

Arizona Republic) and outside the federal zone.

Lastly, Mr. Browning's ORDER was improperly served upon

Plaintiff via United States Mail, because it was addressed to:

Sheila Terese Wallen [sic]
PO Box 335 [sic]
Arivaca, AZ 85601 [sic]

Plaintiff has previously notified all interested parties that She

will refuse all mail unless it is directed to the mailing

location as shown on the face page of this pleading. Plaintiff

hereby reiterates Her intent to refuse all U.S. Mail which

exhibits "AZ" or unqualified zip codes and which fails to exhibit

her proper mailing location as shown supra, and of Her intent to

receive (but not necessarily accept) all U.S. Mail which is

directed to Her proper mailing location.

Notice to agents is notice to principals.

[eros]

[David Merrill]

I have in several examples enjoyed the Non-Statutory Abatement process of Randy Lee (Christian Jural Society). That was the exact same process worded differently. - Very effective and very well researched (UCLA Law Library) with John QUAID the actor on The King's Men.

Interestingly the entire process came down to Your Papers are hereby Refused for Cause without Dishonor and No Recourse to Me. - Something like that.

I say it is a waste of breath to teach attorneys about law. Therefore it is best to simply put three words on the Presentment in conspicuous (a clever UCC term) red Magic Marker. The effectiveness of the R4C is solely based in your right to do it (right of refusal) and your evidence repository - or whatever record forming technique you have developed.

[Moxie]

Are the words "Refusal for Cause" found in the UCC? If not, how was that phrase created -- who created it?

[David Merrill]

Are the words "Refusal for Cause" found in the UCC? If not, how was that phrase created -- who created it?

I suppose somebody might do some online searches of the UCC to answer that. I have been using it so long I cannot recall where I picked it up or invented it myself. I remember the term was similar in Randy Lee's materials in the early '90's.

The clerks of court are calling a Refusal for Cause a Notice of Refusal.

[allodial]

Re: UCC... You might recall an old, old post of mine on older sites. I can reiterate:

The UCC doesn't necessarily create the foundations for refusal for cause. However "refusal for cause without dishonor" is mentioned in the UCC and is very much similar or along the lines of the general idea of refusal for cause. (See U.C.C. 3-501). Article 3 of the UCC deals with negotiable instruments, so quoting UCC 3-501 on something non-commercial would be a tell-tale sign to an attorney that one might not really know what one is doing or talking about or whatever. More important is along the lines of the following:

(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and {note the 'and'} equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions. UCC 1-103

Every contract or duty within [the Uniform Commercial Code] imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement. UCC 1-304

The point being, commercial law, the law of bills of exchange are suboordinate to and are at the least offshoots of contract law. The principles of contract law and the remedies and recourses associated therewith rule NOT the UCC:

[1] choice of law;
[2] law of the flag;
[3] lex locii celebrationis;
[4] capacity of the parties and the fact that the word 'party' connotes a WILLING PARTICIPANT RATHER THAN SOMEONE COERCED SO IF YOU ADMIT TO BEING A PARTY YOU ARE ADMITTING TO BEING A WILLING PARTICIPANT;
[5] contractual remedies;
[6] equity (equitable remedies and principals and such);
[7] notice & grace;
[8] public policy (equity since 1938);
[9] fairness;
[10] the fundamental right of avoidance being of chief importance in that for example I have the right to avoid any contract I do not wish to be party to;
[11] clean hands doctrine;
[12] good faith;

Every contract or duty within [the Uniform Commercial Code] imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement. UCC 1-304

.

I would tend to suggest that the UCC is just a restatement, reiteration, regurgitation or compilation of principles underlying both equity jurisprudence and contract law. One nice thing about the UCC is that it repeats some of the goodies from both the realms of equity and that of contract law. UCC 1-304 for example could be utilized to remind an over-zealous government official of the necessity of good faith and clean hands. Consider equity as being the opposite of iniquity.



IMHO R4C is exercise of a fundamental right of avoidance (i.e. right to be a non-party or non-participant).

2.2.7
(Conflict of interests)

(1) If a contract concluded by an agent involves the agent in a conflict of interests with the principal of which the third party knew or ought to have known, the principal may avoid the contract. The right to avoid is subject to Articles 3.2.9 and 3.2.11 to 3.2.15.
(2) However, the principal may not avoid the contract
(a) if the principal had consented to, or knew or ought to have known of, the agent's involvement in the conflict of interests; or
(b) if the agent had disclosed the conflict of interests to the principal and the latter had not objected within a reasonable time.

(Source: UNIDROIT Principals of International Commercial Contracts Article 2.2.7)

Perhaps then even someone purporting to be your agent or representative (such as a *ahem* *cough cough* political representative of some kind) can't bind you to something the agent should have known you wouldn't be interested in.

It gets even better..

A party may avoid a contract when it has been led to conclude it by the other party's
imminent and serious threat of an act:

(a) which is wrongful in itself, or
(b) which it is wrongful to use as a means to obtain the conclusion of the contract, unless in the circumstances the first party had a reasonable alternative

THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - Parts I and II revised 1998
(Parts I and II revised 1998, Part III 2002) - Article 4:108 (ex art. 6.108) - Threats

Perhaps it could be summed up thusly: "It ain't the UCC..its contract law." R4C is applied contract law. Plenty of links and resources for the reader.

[xman]

I am trying to better comprehend refuse for cause.

1. what do the words mean specifically?
2. does cause have the same meaning as it would in: "nature and cause", good cause or cause of action?
3. is this contract law and UCC?
4. is this common law and if so where do i find the source
5. what is the cause for refusing, is it any fraudulent act or a interference with rights or what can it be?

I have found alleged public officials who are holding office without Oath and i find this to be impeachable act and even though i have required copy its not been rendered and still they go on as if i have not required it. I have letter from the the records people at the secretary of states office saying that they have no responsive records for said Officials and these officials do "CAUSE", harm, injury and loss to I.

Thank you for your help.

Thank you.

[David Merrill]

I am trying to better comprehend refuse for cause.

1. what do the words mean specifically?
2. does cause have the same meaning as it would in: "nature and cause", good cause or cause of action?
3. is this contract law and UCC?
4. is this common law and if so where do i find the source
5. what is the cause for refusing, is it any fraudulent act or a interference with rights or what can it be?

I have found alleged public officials who are holding office without Oath and i find this to be impeachable act and even though i have required copy its not been rendered and still they go on as if i have not required it. I have letter from the the records people at the secretary of states office saying that they have no responsive records for said Officials and these officials do "CAUSE", harm, injury and loss to I.

Thank you for your help.

Thank you.

Thank you for the stimulating post xman.

I want to show you something I am learning currently by revelation. First images.

There is no OMB # in the upper right hand corner of the Affidavit - which reads "So help me God." - Not "SO HELP ME GOD." Notice attached the pdf file; they never returned an answer. I guess the default prompted them to send the Oath afterward.


Continued...

[David Merrill]

Some of the oaths on MITCHELL's website have the OMB#. But when they don't...



Look familiar? However this is a licensed attorney and if you look closely, acting as a private attorney general. Where this takes my imagination is I simply use MITCHELL's webpage for the oaths I use. I hear it is very difficult to press FOIA and if you endorse private credit you lose authority. I think it is great to see an attorney Refusing for Cause identically to the way I have been teaching for twenty years.

I could probably get MITCHELL to push a federal criminal complaint or garnishment in admiralty by paying him, and get better results than for the IRS and DoJ to drop any prosecution?

The exciting revelation is this demand has been made many times by cancelling lawful money. Signing through a postage stamp. It is less clear than the rubber redemption demand stamp but by challenging the DoJ to prosecute you for defacing money, and the DoJ defaulting they recognize your redeemed authority.

[xman]

David,

Thank you. This is a lot of cryptic information, for example, OMBs i have no idea what that is but after a quick look im guessing that its a publishing thing. I'm trying to share my observations too and i will in detail. This is very interesting for me and Mitchell's site is also very interesting. i'll need to look closely at. These Oaths are a little different in that they are not State Judges but the people who i am talking about are. I need to study this information you posted and thank you. I'll be working on this a lot so I appreciate your insight. I'm just that the slow it down break it down stage playing catch up. If i was to reach out to you privately and compensate you for a little of you time do you thing you can help me get up to speed a bit more quickly. It's incredible that i can get a certified copy of the oath of office for the man acting as Governor but i get no responsive records for the ones who cause harm to I. How convenient for them. . . Accountability, responsibility and enforceability is what's important for a lot of bad things to stop happening.

[george]

This is a lot of cryptic information

it was a simple question too. one i asked in many ways.. found the term 'Refused for cause' much later elsewhere in an old english doc but dont recall exactly which doc now. essentially in that doc it was used for notification of a lack of jurisdiction.

[David Merrill]

I am trying to better comprehend refuse for cause.

1. what do the words mean specifically?
2. does cause have the same meaning as it would in: "nature and cause", good cause or cause of action?
3. is this contract law and UCC?
4. is this common law and if so where do i find the source
5. what is the cause for refusing, is it any fraudulent act or a interference with rights or what can it be?

I have found alleged public officials who are holding office without Oath and i find this to be impeachable act and even though i have required copy its not been rendered and still they go on as if i have not required it. I have letter from the the records people at the secretary of states office saying that they have no responsive records for said Officials and these officials do "CAUSE", harm, injury and loss to I.

Thank you for your help.

Thank you.

1. I do not like the Presentment; it is bad business or one-sided, of no benefit.

The Fed is not an agency of the US. It is an instrumentality but only because Congress has sanctioned it to do bad business. It honors debt like debt has value - elastic currency. It feels cryptic but you have to get your head right before you can begin to interpret the event horizon or standing wave into a useful experience.

The brain trust is helpful - the lesson plan is now $800/new suitor. Both sides of the brain - split brain hemisphericity.







Brain Trust = by utilizing 125 brains in parallel I have acquired the supercomputer I was always dreaming of.






You are not a small part of this - StSC. More of an echo chamber though, for resonance characterization.

2. I thought showing you an attorney using the same technique might clarify. MITCHELL's cause is that the OMB publication is law. "Lack of Jurisdiction." I like that aspect applied to R4C. Thank you George.

3. Both contract law and the UCC are about trust.

4. Common law is nothing more than case law. The Common Law of England has been adopted in America until overwritten by statute or stare decisis. It is cases that are used to sway appeals justices - "authority".

5. It can be any innovation to the contract/trust. If one party notifies the other party of a change, then the other party has time to think it over and if he stays quite it cures into the new bylaw of the trust agreement. Law. The way to refuse is called Refusal for Cause.

[george]

[ATTACH]4881[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]4882[/ATTACH]

is this also part of The Voynich manuscript?

3. Both contract law and the UCC are about trust.

another interesting tidbit ive ran across.. when a contract requires a payment(s) and there is no money with which to immediately pay it with, that contract automatically becomes a trust.

4. Common law is nothing more than case law.

that really would have to depend on the definition of "Common" , and much like the term 'Common sense', it can have a different meaning to different people. my only common law is the so called golden rule and the people who live by that rule, i share something in common with.

5. It can be any innovation to the contract/trust. If one party notifies the other party of a change, then the other party has time to think it over and if he stays quite it cures into the new bylaw of the trust agreement. Law. The way to refuse is called Refusal for Cause.

dont you mean to write 'any novation'? and i dont think 'contract' and 'trust' are interchangeable and/or synonymous. seems to me, at this point in time, that contract is of law and trust is of equity. ive posted a new thread http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...3749#post23749 that if anyone is interested in and replys to, i will post more about my latest perspective on this.

it might be that contract and trusts are like oil and water? for instance, if you have no trust in another then a contract would be the right tool for a job but if there is a trust, a contract would not be needed.