Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: The Original R4C in the modern civil era?

  1. #1

    The Original R4C in the modern civil era?

    [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 ?


    R.G. The son of J.S.


    Fergus county court
    country of Montana
    Common Law venue - - supreme Court

    refusal for cause without dishonor

    united States of America )
    Montana state { organic } ) ss. before our Justices' Petersen, Schweitzer, Skurdal
    Fergus county )

    TO: office of supreme Court clerk, c/o office of supreme Court Justices'; and,
    John T. Mitchell; Ward A. Shanahan; David C. Dalthorp; GOUGH, SHANAHAN, JOHNSON, & WATERMAN;

    By special appearance only, not voluntarily, nor generally, over my will and against my objections, I, Richard E. Wilson, through special assistance of counsel in Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction hereby present refusal for cause without dishonor upon purported summons in purported case no. BDV-95-372 concerning purported plaintiff JOHN T. MITCHELL, specially presenting notice to the legal fiction MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, a legislative created tribunal d/b/a compact party state of Montana via agency for the District of Columbia.

    The purported summons was not signed by the office of clerk of court;
    The purported summons was not signed by the deputy clerk;
    The purported deputy clerk was not elected by the People;
    The purported hearing officer has a conflict of interest;
    The purported plaintiff is represented by a title of nobility;
    The purported plaintiff did not bond his affidavit;
    The purported plaintiff did not file for record an affidavit;
    The purported court is not a court of record;
    The purported clerk of court is not ex officio recorder in and for Lewis and Clark county;
    Demurrers are presented in U.C.C. § 1-103;
    The legislative created tribunal cannot usurp trial by jury of peers;
    The legislative created tribunal cannot usurp exclusive jurisdiction for supreme Court quiet title;
    The legislative created tribunal officers must make timely answer to supreme Court quiet title;
    Nisi prius process is void ab initio upon failure to make timely answer to Common Law venue, original and exclusive quiet title in matters relating to private property Rightfully owned by Richard E. Wilson;
    The titles of nobility have not placed upon public record a bond in the legislative created tribunal;
    Fergus county-court has not granted leave to any titles of nobility to enter into exclusive quiet title cause of action;
    The MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY are standing in default for their failure to make answer to writ of error;
    By the failure to make answer to writ of error, any purported judgment obtained from the nisi prius judge in the MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY is rendered null and void at its inception;
    The purported findings of fact, conclusions of law, order granting permanent injunction and judgment awarding damages is null and void by the fact no trial by jury occurred at the demand of Richard E. Wilson causing reversible error for willful violations of Article of amendment the Seventh of our national Constitution;
    THOMAS C. HONZEL is not a verified signature on purported order;
    David C. Dalthorp failed to post bond in the legislative created tribunal prior to entering signature in purported court process in the above styled nisi prius court;
    Jeffrey M. Sherlock purported to sign a court process while being in contempt of court for failure to answer writ of error, judgment having been taken against the nisi prius ministerial officer by default;

    Jeffrey M. Sherlock could not have signed court process against Richard E. Wilson while standing in default for the sum certain amount of Six Hundred Forty Thousand ( 640,000.00 ) upon U.C.C. lien duly filed for record in our country of Montana;

    Judgment in favor of Richard E. Wilson against the defendants in error above named was duly entered into Fergus county court by our Justices' causing the purported summons above described to be a moot issue.

    This refusal for cause is true, correct and certain; and, “Again, you have heard it was decreed to the ancients, that you shall not perjure yourselves, but give up your vow to the Lord. But I tell you in short, Do not vow at all; not by heaven, for that is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because that is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for that is the city of the great King. Neither vow by your head, because you are not able to make a single hair white or black. But let your language be ‘Yes, yes’; ‘No, no’: for whatever exceeds these proceeds from evil.” “Holy Scriptures” Matthew 5:33 Ferrar Fenton

    teste meipso this ____ day of June, in the year of our Mighty One, Yahweh,
    through our Redeemer, Yahshua the Messiah, Nineteen Hundred Ninety Five, A.D..
    per curiam: __________________________________________________ __________________
    Richard E. Wilson, Justice pro tempore

    notary public Seal: __________________________________________________ _____
    Rodney O. Skurdal, duly appointed, commissioned, empowered and privately bonded.
    I, Rodney O. Skurdal, notary public in our County and State aforesaid, hereby attest and acknowledge the above described document as true, correct and certain, duly signed before me by the freeman character known to me as Richard E. Wilson, on this _____ , day of June, Nineteen Hundred Ninety Five, A.D..

    Fees: ____________________ , Postage: __________________________ , Affidavit: ____________________ ,
    Oath: ____________________ , Mileage: __________________________ , Misc:, ______________________ .

  2. #2
    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!

  3. #3

    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]

    In Propria Persona

    All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice



    Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) Case No. 95-484-TUC
    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).


    SHOW CAUSE [cites omitted] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (hereinafter

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





    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


    Notice of Refusal for Cause:
    Page 2 of 6

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


    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
    [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.

  4. #4
    Some interesting information for review

    More to the merits, legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242?243 (1850); Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871); Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873); Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877); Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878); The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879); Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne?Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); and Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982). The U.S. Courts of Appeal are Article III federal courts [cites omitted here].
    In Marathon supra, Justice Brennan for the plurality reasoned that Congress could create legislative courts without Article III protections in only three limited settings: (1) territorial courts, (2) courts martial, and (3) courts deciding disputes involving public rights that Congress created in the first instance. Thus, by treating the 50 States as federal Territories and by creating federal citizenship as a municipal franchise, Congress could effectively “broadcast” into those States a legislative court that routinely proceeds without Article III protections! See the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27?30, April 9, 1866 A.D. In the legislative USDC, those protections are options, not mandates, particularly when the extension statutes supra are also routinely ignored.

    (a)The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, sixteen judges who shall constitute a court of record known as the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court is declared to be a court established under article I of the Constitution of the United States.

    (b)The President shall designate one of the judges of the Court of Federal Claims who is less than seventy years of age to serve as chief judge. The chief judge may continue to serve as such until he reaches the age of seventy years or until another judge is designated as chief judge by the President. After the designation of another judge to serve as chief judge, the former chief judge may continue to serve as a judge of the court for the balance of the term to which appointed.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    Are the words "Refusal for Cause" found in the UCC? If not, how was that phrase created -- who created it?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Moxie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 09-11-13 at 11:40 PM.

  8. #8
    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;
    [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.
    Name:  9781454811060_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG
Views: 645
Size:  14.4 KB
    Name:  UCC-1-103_Wolters_Kluwer_2012CCL_1_of_3.jpg
Views: 672
Size:  57.4 KBName:  UCC-1-103_Wolters_Kluwer_2012CCL_2_of_3.jpg
Views: 684
Size:  78.3 KBName:  UCC-1-103_Wolters_Kluwer_2012CCL_3_of_3.jpg
Views: 626
Size:  66.8 KBName:  UCC-1-304_Wolters_Kluwer_2012CCL_1_of_1.jpg
Views: 662
Size:  75.3 KB

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

    (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

    (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.
    Last edited by allodial; 09-18-13 at 11:45 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    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.Name:  oath.gif
Views: 546
Size:  84.9 KBName:  affidavit.gif
Views: 516
Size:  111.5 KB

    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.

    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions

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