Prosecutions WITHOUT an Actual Injured Party are a SHAM

[David Merrill]

P.S. Go get this judge's oath of office and show it to us please.

[qt2t]

do I have to go to court or can I respond by letter? if yes, is there a template?

thanks in advance
Tara

[qt2t]

Yeah, I'm not looking to do bonds or whatever...! Just wanting to hang onto my FRN's and not give them to revenue generators. Would prefer to stay out of court, so am wanting a letter to respond to judge. Is there a template, do you know or can I just write: Dear Sir (not honorable judge) There is no injured party in this regard, nor a competent witness. Trinsey V. Pagliaro D.C. Pa. 1964 229 F. Supp. 647. Please dismiss this complaint. thank you Tara ................? Thanks for your help

[David Merrill]

The People of the State of XXXXXXX have been injured and are represented by the Attorney General and his agent the District Attorney.

If you read my posts again, what I suggested is that your Acceptance for Value is without law because there is no bond. Go get his oath of office and if there is a flaw then you have a cause to end this. Also get the District Attorney's oath but that will likely be available from the Secretary of State - not being county. I am making assumptions so look at your state constitution for the details about the oath.

If there is a flaw in either oath - this form might get his attention. You are being prosecuted from a vacant office - maybe extortion or conspiracy - (look in Title 18 for crimes).

You have to find something that has the substance of law. That sounds like what the judge is saying; He sees no law behind your A4V argument.

[Anthony Joseph]

I believe the only thing you can accept for value has to have value. Most of the dogma around A4V seems to me that it supposes an account of some kind that you can draw upon like a checking account. Proving that account exists from a mere registry - like a birth certificate - is likely folly.

Oaths of office though, properly subscribed in correct form, published at the correct clerk are bonds but only have value if the judicial officer violates the constitutions or law. One likely angle would be that he has a fault in his oath; around here it is swearing without the name of God.

So get a look at your state constitution. Most likely this county judge has to have his oath published at the county clerk and recorder. For a couple bucks go get that. Somebody came across an new confirmation just yesterday. Look through these:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5...ffirmation.pdf Yesterday's Find

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1953/formofaffirmation.jpg

See what is happening there? If one swears, they must mention the Witness - God. This aligns up with the bond on you. - Your driver license. Here that is a $250 bond indicated by a fellow who challenged jurisdiction. He got notice he had a warrant and went in to find that he needed to post a $250 bail bond. The magistrate determined he was a Patriot Sovereign etc. and that the state's driver license card might be worthless to him. So they hit him for $250 cash instead.

That $250 bail bond carries the Name of the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST. Look on the Bills indicting the US through the Fed. Bills of Indictment. Therefore the judicial officer must be tied into the same Trust and bonding system. I swear by the ever-living God...

Now people and officers can solemnly affirm instead but that just defers to somebody up the line who has sworn. In other words Dan MAY might solemnly affirm and leave off the name of God, as DA because he is under John William SUTHERS.

Look closely though. Dan MAY is running a vacant office because he swears but without the Authority of the Witness - God.

This fellow Dan PETERSEN developed early (before James Timothy TURNER anyway) negative averment liens against public officials who had no oaths at all but I do not know how directly those instruments played to him spending his life since in prison.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Does the Constitution mandate that every judge swear to the everliving God or speak "So help me God" rather than affirm without a punishing authority? The DA who affirmed may be under the judge who swore, but what of a judge who affirms; who is he/she under?

If the answer is no one, then the Constitutional mandate regarding oaths is supreme law in that vain meaning ANY judge who does NOT swear is running a vacant office; no higher punishing authority exists for that office of trust.

Is this correct?

[David Merrill]

Let's see the oath of the supreme court judge swore in Dan MAY?

That is not exactly what you are after but maybe if I look in my Oaths directory I can put something together... Nope! The only affirmation I have is old and from administered by the old chief judge. I don't have his oath.

The way I am understanding it, by all research at this point, any affirmation must be deferring to a judge who has been sworn in by swearing. That allows for your hypothesis but does not confirm it.

[David Merrill]

P.S. Hey!!

I just looked at that Oath of Office. He signed before a Notary. Fine. But the other day I learned about Notaries administering oaths! See how that agrees with Colorado Statute?

It looks like the Notary has mis-administered. Dan MAY was allowed to swear but not by any Witness - the ever-living God.