Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Frog Farm Issue 01
Welcome to the first "official" installment of the Frog Farm.
The purpose of the Frog Farm is to discuss issues which involve a Free
People and their Public Servants, and how to deal with the various problems
that can arise between a free person who exercises and demands rights and
errant public servants who exceed the scope of their powers. These include:
The Rights of Man and subsequent obligations
The nature of the contract for government
The right of liberty
The Constitutions and their Amendments
Supreme Court Decisions
The Money Issue - Real Money v Imaginary Debt
Taxes and Licensing
Republic v Democracy
Barter and Trade v Commerce and Traffic
Various types of Jurisdiction
And the PRIMARY TOPIC, ABOVE, BEHIND AND THROUGH ALL THESE OTHERS, IS:
Defending one's rights in the courts
Questions and constructive criticism are welcomed. Note that humor,
philosophy or other such interesting things are welcome as well.
If you wish, you may send encrypted mail via PGP. The public key is
at the end of this installment.
This installment consists of three pieces:
1) Notes from a business law text on the Uniform Commercial Code
with comments by transcriptionist
2) Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law
3) A sample case in rough outline
If you know of a possible provider for a "real" list server, please send
mail! My supply of material and willingness to discuss it are plentiful; my
available time and volume capability are far lower.
until next time,
laissez faire...
**
notes from Business Law: Uniform Commercial Code, 11th ed.,Ronald A. Anderson
all emphasis from transcriptionist
the original contract for government is the constitution. all the others are
ones that you were probably forced or pressured into "voluntarily" signing,
unless by some rare stroke of fortune, you have never signed anything in
your life, and your parents never signed anything for you. barring that, how
do you nullify contracts with government (or with anyone, for that matter)
when you realize you have been a victim of fraud?
the answer: you must be the Idiot who finally comes to his senses.
"11:10. INSANE PERSONS. An insane person lacks capacity to make a binding
contract. The contract of an insane person is either voidable or void. In
order to constitute insanity...the party must be so deranged mentally as to
not understand that a contract is being made OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IS DONE. IF A PARTY LACKS SUCH UNDERSTANDING, THE CAUSE
OF THE MENTAL CONDITION IS IMMATERIAL."
so you don't have to be insane in the clinical sense of the word - by law, the
only indicia of insanity is that you are mentally incapable of understanding
the effects of signing the contract.
"(a) Effect of Insanity. An insane party may generally avoid a contract in
the same manner as a minor. Upon the removal of the disability, that is, upon
becoming sane, the former insane person may either ratify or disaffirm the
contract. If the insane person dies, a personal representative or heirs may
also affirm or disaffirm the contract."
now when you suddenly realize that you don't want this contract, what are the
mechanics of voiding it? let's start out with the alleged ratification of the
contract. these weird looking guys in suits are sending you threatening
letters, making harrassing phone calls, and generally making your life hell.
naturally, your first reaction is to find out what authority or right they
have to do all this, since if they can't show you any, they're liable for
prosecution and damages. even if they're telling the truth when they say they
work for the government (and their actions would certainly seem to suggest the
opposite), if they exceeded their jurisdiction (authority, limits of power),
they lose their "immunity from prosecution".
so you need to ask them: where is the contract, and when did i sign it, and is
that really my signature, and was i sane at the time, or maybe a minor and my
parents did it without even consulting me -- and EVEN IF IT IS VALID, i don't
believe i was made aware of all those terms and conditions i see in the fine
print, and given the nature of this contract, that's pretty clear evidence of
fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, now doesn't it?
"12.5. FRAUD. Fraud is the making of a false statement of fact with knowledge
of its falsity or with reckless indifference as to its truth, with the intent
that the listener rely thereon, and the listener does so rely and is harmed
thereby...When one party to the contract is guilty of fraud, the contract is
voidable and may be set aside by the injured party."
"(a) Misstatement of Fact. A misstatement of a past or present fact is an
element of fraud...An intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the
transaction between the parties is fraudulent.
"(b) Mental State. The speaker must intend that the other party rely upon the
statement which is false."
as far as these are concerned, it's obvious that: 1) the government ALWAYS
needs more money, so the more people they can get to join them, the better,
and 2) they're ALWAYS willing to lie through their teeth to get people to
join. Read Vic Lockman, "Social Security: The Crumbling Fraud". also the
NO-SS.DOC file for a more detailed explanation of the fraud, and an example of
an affidavit which rescinds the contract.
"2. Misstatement of Opinion or Value. Ordinarily, a misstatement of opinion
or value is not regarded as fraudulent, on the theory that the person hearing
the statement recognizes, or should recognize, that it is merely the speaker's
personal view, and not a statement of fact...IF, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT, IN
MAKING A STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE, HAD KNOWLEDGE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
PLAINTIFF WHICH SHOWED THAT SUCH EXPECTATIONS COULD NOT BE REALIZED, THE
STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE EXPECTATIONS CAN BE HELD FRAUDULENT. Thus, a
statement that a business would make a stated profit in the future is
actionable when the speaker knows that on the basis of past events, such
prediction was false."
did they lie to you about the soundness of the system to get you to join? damn
straight, and they knew it. public servants are split about 50/50 on this.
Half of them know perfectly well that it's a ripoff and an unsound system; the
other half are totally ignorant.
"3. Misstatements of the Law. ...Ordinarily, the listener is regarded as
having an opportunity of knowing what the law is...equal to that of the
speaker, so that the listener is not entitled to rely on what the speaker
says. [However] when the speaker has expert knowledge of the law, OR CLAIMS TO
HAVE SUCH KNOWLEDGE, the misstatement of law can be the basis for fraud
liability."
it's generally held that ignorance of the law is no excuse. but these people
are your government! they wouldn't lie to you, would they? so of course you
trusted them! not only that, but isn't it generally accepted that the
government knows FAR more about the law than any of us peons (slaves)? and
don't most people operate on that assumption whenever they sign anything? no
wonder they're bound by so many contracts.
"(c) Investigation Before Relying on Statement. If the listener had available
the ready means of determining the truth of the statement...the listener is
not entitled to let that opportunity pass...as a limitation on this rule,
however, some courts hold that negligence of the injured party is not a bar to
damages when the wrongdoer takes active steps to conceal the truth...in any
case, if an examination by the plaintiff would not have revealed a particular
defect or condition, either because it is not visible, OR BECAUSE OF THE
TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE MATTER, OR IF A SIMPLE EXAMINATION COULD NOT BE MADE,
the injured party may rely on the statements of the other party, and raise the
issue of fraud upon learning that the statements were false. A misrepresen-
tation made to present further inquiry also constitutes fraud."
most people would say that the law is a very technical matter; others would
disagree. the only thing that matters is that at the time, you probably got
real worried at the thought of having to research and confirm everything you
were being told. lord knows, it's taken people a loooong time to figure out..
it certainly takes more than a "simple" examination!
"12:6. UNDUE INFLUENCE. An aged parent may entrust all business affairs to a
trusted child; an invalid may rely on a nurse; a client may follow implicitly
whatever an attorney recommends. The relationship may be such that for all
practical purposes, the one person is helpless in the hands of the other. When
such a confidential relationship exists, it is apparent that the [first party]
IS NOT IN FACT EXERCISING FREE WILL IN MAKING A CONTRACT SUGGESTED BY THE
[second party], BUT IS MERELY FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE OTHER PERSON."
this is most often the case when parents make contracts for minors, since
under normal circumstances, minors may not make valid, binding contracts.
in this day and age (circa 1992), most parents sign their children up for
Social Security before they're five minutes out of the womb! and it doesn't
matter even if you're old enough to walk and talk, you're STILL just doing
what you're told and not asking questions.
"Because of the great possibility that the person dominating the other will
take unfair advantage, the law presumes that the dominating person exerts
undue influence upon the other person WHENEVER THE DOMINATING PERSON OBTAINS
ANY BENEFIT FROM A CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DOMINATED PERSON."
if you didn't have a Social Security number, your parents couldn't claim you
as a tax deduction. how many other benefits and privileges do they derive from
entering you into these contracts? not to mention the obvious hassle from
bureaucrats they can avoid just by signing those papers - who can blame them,
given the hassle you're getting now just for asking questions and trying to
determine these people's lawful authority? in any case, they DEFINITELY derive
numerous and substantial benefits from having you move along in the same
direction as the rest of the herd..
"[the] essential element of undue influence is that the person making the
contract DOES NOT EXERCISE FREE WILL."
how the heck can someone exercise free will regarding something when they
don't understand it, their legal guardian is forcing them into it, and they're
too young to legally avoid it even if they DO understand it? my parents got me
my social security number when i was about 8 or 9 years old. i remember
standing in the office with my father, listening to him explain "how the
system worked"; namely, that every time i worked, they'd take a little bit out
and save it for me, and when i was old, i'd have something to live off of. of
course, i know NOW that it was all lies, and even HE probably didn't know it
then, but at the time -- hell, do you think your parents would lie to you?
even if you don't trust the government (and most kids instinctively don't),
you STILL probably trust your parents. at least until you hit puberty...
"12:7. DURESS. A person makes a contract under duress when there is such
violence or threat of violence that the person is deprived of free will, and
makes the contract to avoid harm."
i'll point out the obvious here...namely, that ALL law is backed up with the
threat of force. the government told you it was required by law (a lie), that
you had to have an SS number in order to legally work (another lie), and that
it was AGAINST THE LAW to NOT have a number if you wanted to work (the biggest
lie of all). ergo, you were under the impression that if you DIDN'T join, they
would punish you severely, just like a robber or a murderer.
"If a contract is made under duress, then the resulting agreement is voidable
at the victim's election."
if you were forced into it, you can get out of it.
"(b) Economic Duress. The economic pressure on a contracting party may be so
great that it will be held to constitute duress. Economic duress occurs when
the victim is threatened with irreparable loss for which adequate recovery
could not be obtained by suing the wrongdoer."
don't they always tell you that the system is there to give you financial
security? don't they spin grim tales about what happens to folks who DON'T
join, like the canonical old-ladies-eating-Alpo? don't they make you scared
out of your wits that if you don't join, you'll end up poor and starving?
this would actually fall more under misstatement of fact, above, but it's
something to think about.
okay, that's the why, what about the how? the remedies for fraud are
rescission, action for damages, or reformation of the contract by a court. we
won't concern ourselves with that last one -- why bother trying to turn manure
into gold? as for damages, they're all fine and dandy, but the REAL goal is to
get these idiots to leave you alone, and keep them from damaging you in some
way. RESCISSION is just you saying, "I take it back; I revoke my signature; it
is as if I had never signed it."
"12:8. REMEDIES. ...
"(a) Rescission. If the contract is voidable, it can be rescinded or set aside
by the party who has been injured or of whom advantage has been taken. IF NOT
AVOIDED, THE CONTRACT IS VALID AND BINDING..."
in other words, you have to do it AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
"When a contract is voidable, the right to rescind the contract is lost by any
conduct that is inconsistent with an intention to avoid it. For example, when
a party realizes that there has been a mistake, BUT CONTINUES WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE RIGHT TO AVOID THE CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THE
MISTAKE IS LOST. Likewise, it is generally held that a contract, although
procured by duress, may be ratified by the victim of the duress, as by
ADHERING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, OR MAKING CLAIMS TO BENEFITS ARISING
THEREFROM. The right to rescind the contract is lost if the injured party,
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, AFFIRMS THE TRANSACTION, or when, with such
knowledge, the injured party FAILS TO OBJECT TO THE GUILTY PARTY WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME. In determining whether a reasonable time has expired, the
court considers WHETHER THE DELAY BENEFITED THE INJURED PARTY, whether a late
avoidance of the contract would cause unreasonable harm to the guilty party,
and whether avoidance would harm intervening rights of third persons acquired
after the original transaction."
so the minute you figure out the fraud, from that moment on, watch your steps
VERY carefully. don't cash any checks the government may "give" you, don't
accept ANYTHING from them. just keep quiet, and research the daylights out of
your case, and don't give them any hassles. lay low until you've got your case
completely written out and planned ahead for as many possible contingencies as
you can imagine. if they object, one of your lines of defense can be that you
knew that it was fraud, but that was ALL you knew; therefore, you didn't have
"full knowledge of the facts". you had to do years of research to uncover all
the facts you needed to PROVE that fraud.
"When the contract has resulted in the transfer of property from the guilty
party to the victim, the latter also loses the right to rescind if, WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE SITUATION, the victim RETAINS AND USES the property,
SELLS IT TO ANOTHER, or USES IT AFTER THE GUILTY PERSON REFUSES TO TAKE IT
BACK."
money is property. so again, DON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING from them!
**
Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law
Short Research by Nombrist Beor/Paul Campbell
5455 Gull Road, Suite #142
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
History
Peviously, the sovereign was the king, introduced to England by William the
Conqueror. He had both the power of jurisdiction overall others as well as
being effectively outside any jurisdiction. He held the power in the country.
Everyone else was a subject to his sovereign power.
After the Revolution in this country, the States were sovereign until the
illegal ratification of the Constitution. At that power, the sovereignty rested
with the people. This unique position also left no one to be subject to the
sovereigns. They were equals as long as they did not contract away their rights
as sovereigns. They gave up a very minor list of rights only in order to
protect their other rights.
[see Chisholm v. State of Georgia, GA, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 455,
1 L.Ed. 440. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 943.]
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects..
with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow
citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US)
2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.
Later, when some individuals decided to place themselves under the jurisdiction
of the 14th Amendment, they became subjects of government, which was subject to
the sovereigns.
Today, in combination with phony legislation, stupid judges, petty bureacrats,
and imagined benefits along with massive public deception, especially by the
public schools, I hear cries of "But the government can't operate and protect
us if we are not juristic persons and at its every beck and call." I myself am
still at it's beck and call at the time of this writing. My parents made me a
ward of the state by their license to procreate, and further entered me into
contract with the Department of Commerce with a birth certificate, and made me
give full power of attorney to the Department of Health and Social Services via
Social Security Insurance. I am currently less than 6 months from becoming the
age of majority, and some changes are going to be had around here.
Definition
The words "sovereign people" are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the
power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen
is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. Scott v.
Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.
After that, things get complicated, because the European definition doesn't
quite fit with the ones used now. The sovereignty rests with the state, when
the state is a group of people. The United States is a sovereign only so far as
a representative of its citizens in international dealings. Suffice to say that
you are sovereign, but you grant the state sovereignty over you only in the
limited cases listed in the Constitution, and when it steps outside those
bounds, it is no longer sovereign (able to govern) over you. The Yick Wo case
listed first below sums it up best.
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author
and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to
the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one
man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material
right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to
be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of
slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.
"Sovereignty" in government to that public authority which directs or orders
what is to be done by each member associated is relation to the end of the
association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is
the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no
superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which
necessarily follow is "sovereignty". By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is
meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty"
is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 28 P.2d. 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.
"Sovereignty" is a term used to express a supreme political authority of an
independent state or nation. Whatever rights are essential to the existence of
this authority are rights of sovereignty. The rights to declare war, to make
treaties of peace, to levy taxes, and to take property for public uses, termed
the "right of eminent domain," are all rights of sovereignty. In this country
this authority is vested in the people, and is exercised through the joint
action of the federal and state governments. To the federal government is
delegated the exercise of certain rights or powetrs of sovereignty, and with
respect to sovereignty, "rights" and "powers" are synonymous terms; and the
exercise of all other rights of sovereignty, except as expressly prohibited, is
reserved to the people of the respective states, or vested by them into their
local government. When we say, therefore, that a state of the Union is
sovereign, we only mean that she possesses supreme political authority, except
as to those matters over which such authority is delegated to the federal
government or prohibited to the states. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 218, 79
Am. Dec. 123.
Goverment is NOT the Sovereign
There are a lot of cases that refer to the sovereign powers of the United
States or the states themselves and some even construe this limited power as
not just acting in a sovereign capacity, but as a sovereign itself. This is
only true so long as it is acting in its sovereign capacities.
The "sovereign powers" of a government include all the powers necessary to
accomplish its legitimate ends and purposes. Such powers must exist in all
practical governments. They are the incidents of sovereignty, of which a state
cannot divest itself. Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309.
In all governments of constitutional limitations "sovereign power" manifests
itself in but three ways. By exercising the right of taxation; by the right of
eminent domain; and through its police power. United States v. Douglas-Willan
Sartoris Co., 22 P. 92, 96. 3 Wyo. 287.
The term "sovereign power" of a state is often used without any very definite
idea of its meaning, and it is often misapplied. Prior to the formation of the
federal Constitution, the states were sovereign in the absolute sense of the
term. They had established a certain agency under the Articles of Confederation,
but this agency had little or no power beyond that of recommending to the
states the adoption of certain measures. It could not be properly denominated
a government, as it did not possess the power of carrying its acts into effect.
The people of the states, by the adoption of the federal Constitution, imposed
certain limitations in the exercise of their powers which appertain to
sovereignty. But the states are still sovereign. The sovereignty of a state
does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its
government, but in the people, from whom the government emanated; and they may
change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in this country, abides with
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in
reference to the federal and state governments. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed.
Cas. 939, 943.
"Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme
dominion, authority or rule." Brandes v. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657
Ariz 349.
"Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient
for expressing the will of the sovereign power. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.
The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the
people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a
seperate personal entity, and as such it does not posssess the personal
privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by
a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the
English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament. Filbin Corporation v.
United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914.
Agents of the government
"Sovereignty" is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally
ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign
actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our
governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation
to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their
princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have
none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
other capacity than as private citizens. Chisholm v. State of Georga, Ga., 2.
U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440.
Hale doctrine: The Difference between corporations and sovereigns
"If, whenever an officer of employee of a corporation were summoned before
a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of
such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation
itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the
illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers.
Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under
investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation
with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion
that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and
a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books
and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may
stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on
his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He
owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He
owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law
of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be
taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the
law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their
rights."
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is
presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain
special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the
state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can
make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its
creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its
contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers..." Hale v. Henkel,
201 U.S. 43, 279.
Pitfalls for the sovereign individual
Since you don't want to be a juristic person, you can't make claims or
dmands under administrative law, including USC Title 5, only under the at law
jurisdiction, except of course when you are demonstrating to the court that you
are not subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative law. This means
avoiding terms such as taxpayer like the plague.
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
-- 26 USC 7701 A(1)(14)
The worst thing you could do is claim yourself a citizen of the United States,
instantly placing you under the jurisdiction of the United States via the 14th
Amendment. Equally bad is declaring yourself a resident of a state, which means
a foreign agent temporarily residing in the state for the purposes of trade,
regulated under the admiralty jurisdiction and the Uniform Commercial Code. The
Privacy Act grants 4th Amendment privileges to such juristic persons.
States and state officials acting officially are held not to be "persons"
subject to liability under 42 USCS section 1983. Wills v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police, 105 L.Ed. 2nd 45 (1989).
The reason for this is that they were acting in capacity of the sovereign. The
sovereign is not that same as "person" as used in the laws. "Sovereign person"
would be ambiguous. Try to stay with "sovereign" or "sovereign individual" to
avoid this.
Statutes employing the word "person" are ordinarily construed to exclude the
sovereign. 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 -- Def. of "person"
Except for the all but nonexistant common lawyer, lawyers are also a bad thing.
This is because they can't claim a lot of your rights for you and because by
their own oath, their first commitment is to the government, not you. For
example, while using a lawyer, you can't claim the right not to incriminate
yourself under the 5th amendment. Also, by using a representative, you are
declaring yourself incompetent in your legal affairs; also, that you have an
unnatural (juristic) personality that must be "represented". You will hear
that "he who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- but you will not
represent yourself -- you will DEFEND yourself, in your own natural person!
"The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate hmself
is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit
him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his
testimony, even though he were the agent of such person." Hale v. Henkel, 201
U.S. 43.
For further consideration
While it is understood that unless we hold United States citizenship or live
within the District of Columbia, we are not citizens of the United States, this
makes our presence in Courts of the United States (such as a Court of Chancery,
aka a Court of Equity, aka an Admiralty Court) a rather interesting one.
Consider this:
A foreign sovereign power must in courts of United States be assumed to be
acting lawfully, the meaning of "sovereignty" being that decree of the
sovereign makes law. Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum
Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 28 F.Supp. 279, 281.
The very meaning of "sovereignty" is that the decree of the sovereign makes
law. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347,
53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.
"Sovereignty" means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts
cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree. Moscow Fire
Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648,
662, 161 Misc. 903.
And you, as a sovereign individual, are certainly "foreign" to courts of the
United States!
SOVEREIGN
The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown
below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid
concept.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the
people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but
they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens,
and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA
(US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
=================================================================
The second paragraph below contains a strong statement of the
sovereignty of the people.
The section is what is known as the "Brown Act" or
"secret meeting law" (California Government Code).
----------------------
Chapter 9
MEETINGS
Section 54950. Declaration, intent; sovereignty. In enacting
this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public
commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in
this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.
It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly
and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to
the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
(Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)
**
Things to Think about and take care of in a typical case: (partial list)
The act or omission in question: Is it declared by law to be a crime?
Research the law/code/ordinance
The victim: Who?
What Life, Liberty or Property was harmed?
Is the person Natural or Juristic?
Is he At Law, or in Equity?
Is the person competent to testify?
The complaint: Verified by affidavit signed by victim?
If no victim, serve & file constructive notice on gov't agent and judge
Ten days later, file Suit
Grand jury indictment/information
Grand Jury represents the People
District Attorney = The State
Object to prosecution by information, Demand Grand Jury Indictment.
Warrant - Made out for the party arrested?
Check spelling-Joe Blow is not Jo Bloe!
Signed by a judge?
Check "judge's" Oath of Office/compare with required oath in Constitution
Arrest - You have the right to remain silent
You have the right to counsel present
Not required to give fingerprints [Davis v. Mississippi]
Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Arraignment - Starts calendar for speedy trial
Appear specially, not generally
Demand all rights at all times
Disclaim equity jurisdiction
Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
Demand to see a verified complaint - Must be sworn to by complainant within 15
days of Notice to Appear
Must have the seal of the court
Defendent cannot understand charges without counsel
Demand counsel of choice
Object to denial by judge
Cite cases
File written Demand for Counsel of Choice
If judge appoints Public Defender, object!
You have to talk with Public Defender before you can accept him as counsel.
You cannot relate to him.
You have no confidence in him
You cannot be forced to employ counsel beholden to your adversary
Stand "mute"
Judge will enter "Not guilty" plea
Object! Let the record show that defendant stands mute
File "Arraignment & Plea"
File Demand for Plaintiff to Show Constraining Need or in the Alternative
to Dismiss
File Demand for Jury Trial in which the jury decides both the law and the
facts At Law
File Notice of intention to tape record the proceedings per Rule 980(f)
"unless otherwise ordered for cause"
File Demand for court reporter to take transcripts at all hearings
File Demand for transcripts of all proceedings
File Demand for Evidentiary Hearing
File/serve Declaration-Petition for Redress of Grievances
The Preliminary (Evidentiary)Hearing
Appear specially, not generally
Claim all rights at all times
Challenge jurisdiction
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Demand formal, verified complaint
You intend to challenge jurisdiction but you need counsel to adequately argue
jurisdiction
Appearing pro per, not pro se
Get judicial notice of demand for counsel of choice and supporting brief
Get judicial determination for the record that the court is denying
unfettered counsel of choice [final judgement on the matter]
Demand that hearing be postponed so that denial of counsel may be appealed to
higher court
Does court honor demand for rights sua sponte?
Demand that the court prove both agency's and court's jurisdiction on the
record.
"Jurisdiction cannot be assumed & must be decided" Maine v. Thiboutot
100S.Ct.2502 (1980)
"Jurisdiction cannot be presumed" Smith v. McCullough 46S.Ct.338(1926)
Examine/cross-examine witnesses
Discovery:File/serve Demand
Suppression hearing
file Demand to Supress Evidence
Formulate jury instructions
They must have foundation in the record
in the Evidence Exhibits
in the Testimony of Witnesses
Formulate questions for witnesses
For Cross-exam
For Direct exam
Keep Proposed Jury Instructions in mind
Subpoena Witnesses
Expert witnesses
Gov't agents
Witnesses at scene of arrest
Alibi
Motion [Demand] Hearing
Give equity disclaimer/Demand rights
Challenge ensign v. flag
Give Miranda/Title 18 warning
File Constructive Notice
Demand Counsel of choice
File paper
Demand Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
File jurisdiction briefs on Status, Status of Citizens, Merchant At Law,
Rights, Memorandum of Law, Equity, The Monetary System
Demand Rights Sua Sponte
File paper
Demand jury trial w/12 jurors
File Notice & Demand
Jury Selection
Questions for Jurors
Prosecution's Opening Statement
Defense Opening Statement (may wait)
Prosecution Examines Witnesses
Object! Object! Object!
Defense Cross-examines
Defense may testify
Not required to take Oath
Prosecution Closing Statement
Prosecution rests
Defense challenges Prima Facie Case
Code Pleading
Defense moves for directed verdict of aquittal
Defense Opening Statement if delayed
Defense Examines Witnesses
Prosecution cross-examines
Object! Object! Object!
Defense Closing Statement
Defense rests
Prosecution 2nd Closing Statement
Judge's Instuctions to Jury
Object! Object! Object!
Jury Deliberations
Jury Verdict
Defense Motion for Verdict of Aquittal Notwithstanding Jury Verdict
Motion for New Trial if appropriate
Notice of Appeal
Demand for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Order
If denied, file Writ of Habeas Corpus
Demand for transcripts at gov't expense
Proposed statement on Appeal
Use court's form as a cover sheet
Fill blanks with "see Proposed Settled Statement [Attached]
Don't put signature on form
Prosecution's Amendments
Defense Revised Proposed Statement
Settlement conference
Opening Brief on Appeal
Prosecution's Rebuttal to above
Prosecution's Opening Brief
Defense rebuttal
Defense Closing Brief
Originally from Frog Farmer on the Garbanzo Citadel.
**
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2
mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
--
