Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Frog Farm Issue 11
Welcome to the eleventh installment of the Frog Farm. This issue contains:
1) The Hacker Community Wises Up (reprinted from DnA Volume 1, #4)
2) State Legal Citation Systems and Standards
3) Headlines (reprinted from FACE Newsletter September 1993)
4) More from the Vault: The Frog Farm Archives
5) Public Servant's Questionaire
6) Administrivia (and SUBMISSIONS!)
**
[This originally appeared in DnA ("Death 'n Anarchy"), Volume 1, Issue 4. I'm
glad to see that my suspicions have been confirmed: I always knew that hackers
were just the sort of people to become interested in "hacking the law", as it
were. Now if we can convince them to reject nihilism, and extend the concept
of property rights to the intellectual, non-tangible realms, we'll have a
powerful "new generation" spearheading as pro se in court. My biggest fear is
that they'll be too eager, and rush in too fast as I did in the beginning,
without having taken the steps necessary to make themselves judgment proof.
This is dangerous for two reasons. First of all, it makes bad precedent, both
legally and in the eyes of "our enemy, the State". Secondly, if these kids go
rushing headlong into court and end up losing big, it could cause them to
reject the entire concept of freedom, come to the conclusion that sovereignty
is just a crock of shit, and become even more cynical and nihilistic than they
already are.
But the dam has been breached; the meme is being kept alive, the information
preserved.
The first section here is a "readme" sort of thing; the second, longer one is
the actual article.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-= The Sixth Column =-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column Update #3
----------------
By: Lestat De Lioncourt
Whew! It has been an extremely busy month for the Column and its members.
Things are progressing better than we ever imagined. The response that we
have been getting is in a word, phenomenal. I'd like to thank all those who
have been helping out since the beginning and who have taken time out of their
personal lives to assist in our endeavors.
This could very well be the most explosive issue of DnA ever. Even though
Sixth Column has only appeared twice before, the information you are about to
read is in a word "incredible". In this installment we have included two
.GIFs that are copies of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents. Please
see the file that corresponds to the GIFs for further information.
DnA / Sixth Column
Go Global!
------------------
In the past few months there has been an enormous response to the
information we have made available. Many sysops from around the globe are
requesting to be linked up with DnANet and ColumNet.
More information on this will be coming in the next issue. If you can't
wait that long, call DnA Systems and leave e-mail for the sysop requesting
more information.
DnA / Sixth Column
Proudly Announce
The Online Information Ordering System
--------------------------------------
We have been toying around with the idea of putting up an online system
for users to order information literature through DnA Systems. Items
available for ordering will include: books, audio and video tapes, and other
goodies. All will be available at below retail value. DnA Systems will take
NO profit in this venture. Shipping and Handling + Cost = item price. Only
money orders will be accepted.
There has been some discussion concerning the privacy of user's name and
addresses. We have decided to allow users who wish to keep their
address/names/orders completely private, to use PGPed messages to order their
items.
Only one person will be responsible for handling orders, and will have a
special PGP key for this purpose. It will be available on the system shortly.
We will be putting up a catalog of items shortly. Be sure to check it
out. More information will be available shortly on this, or call DnA Systems
for instant updates.
Incredible News of the Month
----------------------------
When I began to delve into the fraud of the Infernal Rape Service (IRS), I
began by reading a series of books written by Irwin Schiff. His writings are
based on legal facts. [FrogNote: So's your average TV movie of the week... ;)
Seriously, despite some of the unbelievable stupid crap he's written about
Jews, his economic and legal stuff is right on.] He has written several books
such as:
o The Federal Mafia
o The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You
o The Social Security Scam
o The Great Income Tax Hoax
o How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes
o The Kingdom of Moltz
o and others
[Yeah, some of these 'others' were discussed briefly in alt.conspiracy]
He was UNLAWFULLY put in phederal prison because he stopped "volunteering"
for the phederal income tax (tribute). I have read the court transcripts of
the case and it doesn't take a genius to see the fraud and cover-up committed
by the IRS, US Attorney, and the Federal Judge.
Irwin Schiff was to be released from federal prison in December of 1993,
however it has been discovered that he was released early! He will be touring
the country immediately, doing seminars, speaking on radio addresses, tv and
cable interviews. During September he will be in California, and then the fun
begins. [Sounds great! Try to hook up with his tour if it hits your town!]
I have already been in contact with Irwin Schiff. We will be meeting with
him personally when he arrives. [Oh my gosh.. 13th generation cyberculture
meets who-only-knows-what-exactly... Will either side be prepared?] He has
recently bought a modem and is curious about the implications of CyberSpace.
(If he only knew) [You can say that again... Okay, I'll quit now. Anything
you see in brackets after this point is Schiff's own comments.]
I have not received any information as to his current schedule. I will
post his dates/locations/times the moment I get them on DnA Systems.
Information will probably be available in mid-September. I recommend that if
you have the opportunity, go to his seminar and listen to him. You will be
amazed!
His books will be available for ordering as soon as we work out a few
details.
Sixth Column
File Section Expanding
----------------------
In the past six to seven months since the birth of the Column, our file
section has been expanding on a daily basis. Not including the H/P side of
DnA Systems, we now house over 1,500 files of information not readily
available to the average citizen.
Users from all over the country have been downloading hundreds of files on
a weekly basis. Some even batch the entire section and d/l 24 megs at once.
I personally have been bombarded with e-mail by people who wish to thank us
for the opportunity to access this information and provide it to the people in
CyberSpace.
Since the beginning, DnA Systems has maintained that all information
should be free. To this end, there are NO RATIOS for file access. I'm glad
to see that many, many people are taking advantage of this.
If anyone knows where we can get an electronic copy of Clinton's New Tax
and Spend Package, please let us know. We have been searching for it but
haven't found anything yet. If you have any information, please call DnA
Systems and leave me e-mail.
New Article Column Added
"The Cult of the Black Robe"
----------------------------
We've been toying around with the idea of putting a month by month column
concerning the unconstitutional acts of judges, U.S. Attorneys, Lawyers, etc.
Our premier article is quite a shocker. We want to give all who read this
magazine the opportunity to add their stories to this section. If you have
been screwed, or are being screwed in an unconstitutional manner, we would
like to hear about it and publish it in the next issue of DnA. ALL articles
will be considered, we do not censor for subject matter. Please put as many
facts/dates/etc as possible. Please send your article to Lestat De Lioncourt
at DnA Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-= The Sixth Column =-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Court Indirectly Proves
No Law Requires A Person To File/Pay
the Federal Income Tax
------------------------------------
What you are about to read is excerpted from Irwin Schiff's book "The Federal
Mafia". Please take careful note of how the Federal Magistrate Judge (court
clerk) desperately tries to trick Schiff into giving the court jurisdiction in
the case.
This article might be a little long, but please take some time to read it, it
will shock you.
<<Beginning Excerpt>>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Proof that no "liability" for income taxes exists
anywhere in the internal revenue code
While I stated in The Great Income Tax Hoax that no section of the Code
made anyone liable for income taxes, I was asking my readers to take my word
for it - or to check the Code out for themselves. But now, thanks to my
latest criminal prosecution and to my two civil law suits, my readers won't
have to do either. As a result of that litigation, the government has
supplied me with all the information that anybody should need.
A U.S. Arraignment - Nazi Style
On April 5, 1985, while on a media tour to promote my recently released
book, The Great Income Tax Hoax, three IRS agents pounced upon me as I was
about to enter the studios of radio station KFBK, Sacramento, California, for
a scheduled talk show appearance. They pinned me against the wall, handcuffed
and arrested me. They all carried concealed pistols, which they were not
authorized to carry (per section 7608) except in connection with the
"enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and
firearms." But what does violating one more law mean to the IRS?
I was subsequently released on bond, and on April 17, I appeared for
arraignment before Magistrate Owen Eagan in Connecticut Federal District Court
in Hartford. The government had charged me with three counts of tax evasion
for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and one count of failing to file a corporate
tax return for 1980. However, on April 8th, approximately 10 days prior to my
arraignment, I submitted a written motion to the court asking it to dismiss
the indictment due to the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I
supported this motion with two memorandums of law. One memorandum cited
sufficient case law to remind the court of two things it already knew, (1)
that whenever a federal court's jurisdiction is challenged the party invoking
its jurisdiction (in this case the federal government) must prove it by clear
and convincing evidence, and (2) that a federal court's jurisdiction can never
be assumed by the court. The two short excepts from two of the cases in my
Memorandum of Law illustrate this:
Jurisdiction cannot be assumed by a District Court
nor conferred by agreement of the parties, but it is
incumbent upon plaintiff to allege in clear terms, the
necessary facts showing jurisdiction which must be
proved by convincing evidence.
-Harris v. American Legion, 162 F. Supp. 700
The authority which the statute vests in the court to
enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the
idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere
averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may
be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure. If
his allegation of jurisdictional facts ARE CHALLENGED BY
HIS ADVERSARY in any appropriate manner, HE MUST
SUPPORT THEM BY COMPETENT PROOF. And where they are
not so challenged, the court may still insist that the
jurisdictional fats be established or the case
dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand
that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his
allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
[emphasis added]
-The Supreme Court
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance, 56 S. Ct. 780
There is ample case law to support this principle that once jurisdiction
is challenged the court hs no authority to do anything but take action on that
motion. As the Supreme Court held in The Statute of Rhode Island v. The State
of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 709 once the question of jurisdiction is raised "it
must be CONSIDERED AND DECIDED, before any court can move one step further."
With this in mind let us see how a Connecticut District Court dealt with this
issue in my case. My motion claimed that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to try me for alleged income tax crimes because:
1. The indictment failed to identify the statute that required the filing
of a corporate income tax return, and thus failed "to state a charge
cognizable in the courts of the United States."
2. "No section of the Internal Revenue Code (erroneously referred to in
my indictment as 26 USC 7201 and 7203) makes individuals liable for
the payment of income taxes" and so I was not required to file a
return or pay the tax purely as a matter of law.
3. "Section 7402 specifically grants civil jurisdiction only." I pointed
out to the court that it was never given jurisdiction by Congress to
conduct a criminal tax trial, because "Title 26" only conferred civil,
not criminal jurisdiction on federal courts. What could be plainer
than that!
4. The court had no jurisdiction to prosecute me (either for evasion or
for not filing) for a tax which was not imposed pursuant to any of the
taxing clauses in the Constitution. That since the income tax was
imposed neither as "a uniform excise tax in accordance with Article I,
Sec 8, Clause 1 nor as an apportioned direct tax pursuant to Article
1, Sect 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Sect 9, Clause 4," a criminal
prosecution pursuant to such a tax would be manifestly
unconstitutional.
I supplied the court with an eighteen page Memorandum of Law just to
support that last contention.
Government Fails To Respond
In total violation of the principle explained in the three cases cited
above, both the prosecution and the courts paid absolutely no attention to my
jurisdictional claim - as shown by the following excerpts from the arraignment
tape that was supplied to me by the court.
Magistrate Eagan:
It is my understanding this morning that we were taking the criminal docket.
The first matter will be criminal number N-85-20. This is a case that is
assigned to the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey for trial. It is the matter of the
United States of America vs. Irwin A. Schiff. Is that correct?
M. Hartmere, Asst. U.S. Attorney:
That's correct, your Honor.
Eagan:
And this matter is here on indictment?
Hartmere:
yes, it is your Honor.
Eagan:
And has a copy of this indictment been given to Mr. Schiff?
Hartmere:
Yes, your Honor I believe he has been provided with a copy.
Eagan:
All right, fine...
Schiff:
Your Honor, I submitted last Monday to this court and to the U.S. Attorney, a
Motion to Dismiss the indictment on four grounds of lack of jurisdiction. So
far the government hasn't responded to that motion. Therefore, I move for a
summary judgement on the grounds that since I filed a motion that this court
has no jurisdiction, because the income tax falls into none of the taxing
clauses of the Constitution, and because I have no liability for the tax; and
since the government hasn't responded to the contrary, I move that the
procedure here be dismissed. However, if the government wants more time to
respond, I'll agree to giving it a continuance.
Eagan:
All right, Mr. Schiff, if you'll excuse me, we'll be seated for a minute.
I'll go through the whole procedure with you and I'll explain it to you. [He
totally ignores the jurisdictional issue I raised in my written motion, and
which I just orally re-urged.]
Schiff:
Well before we can proceed, your Honor, I think what we have to ESTABLISH is
whether or not you have ANY JURISDICTION TO PROCEED. Now, it's very simple.
I have in front of me Section 7402 and it very clearly says, "For general
jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in CIVIL actions
involving internal revenue, see section 1340 or Title 28 of the United States
Code." Now if I can show the court where it has CIVIL jurisdiction, I think
it's appropriate for the government to show the court where it has criminal
jurisdiction...
Eagan:
All right, Mr. Schiff, if you'll sit down for just a second please. Mr.
Schiff this is a preliminary hearing, this is not a trial of the matter nor am
I here to hear motions addressed to jurisdiction. I will give you sufficient
time to address your motion to the trial judge and he will be the one...Mr.
Schiff, please...
[Eagan again totally ignores my claim that the court lacks jurisdiction
to continue, even though the government has yet to utter a single word in its
own behalf. If Eagan had no authority to address this issue, then he should
have re-scheduled it before someone who did. But my written motion was
submitted to the court days before my "arraignment," so the Honorable Peter C.
Dorsey obviously knew that it had to be held before someone who could deal
with the subject. The reason that the court CHOSE THIS METHOD TO AVOID
DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE, will soon become apparent. But let's continue with
my "arraignment."]
Schiff:
Your Honor, are you going to ask me to plead?
Eagan:
Yes, I am.
Schiff:
You'll be asking me to plead to a legal fiction...to plead to something that's
not a crime...Suppose Michael Hartmere indicted me for eating a banana, would
you expect me to plead guilty or not guilty to that? And if I pleaded not
guilty, would I not be suggesting that I believed that eating a banana was a
crime? Before we continue...
Eagan:
No, before we continue you will sit down and you will listen to my explanation
of what we are doing. Please be seated, Mr. Schiff.
[The court and the prosecutor (actually, in this case, one in the same)
were conspiring against me to plead to a legal fiction so that the United
States could illegally prosecute me. For example, suppose that Michael
Hartmere, the U.s. prosecutor who fraudulently engineered my indictment, was
similarly able to pull the wool over the grand jury's eyes and get it to
indict me for having eaten a banana. Suppose further, that I had never eaten
a banana in my life. Would that mean that because of that fact at any
subsequent arraignment, I should simply plead not guilty, or that I could be
"required" to EVEN ENTER A PLEA for that "crime"? Why should I needlessly
have to defend myself (which takes both time and money) from charges that I
was guilty of doing something that I didn't do, but which was not a crime
anyway? By pleading "not guilty," one also subjects himself to the authority
of (and in this case a hostile one) a federal judge who, once he has you in
his clutches, (ie. become subject to his "jurisdiction") can exercise
arbitrary and awesome power over you. He can establish unrealistic bail
requirements, decide that you should be confined right through your trial and
keep you in jail - WITHOUT A TRIAL - by holding you in continuous contempt of
court. And once you are under the court's jurisdiction (which we can only
occur after you submit to its jurisdiction by refusing to challenge it [and
possibly prevailing] by simply entering a standard plea) you can indeed be
found guilty of something you never did and which is not even a crime. This
can occur because once the court assumes jurisdiction, it is in a position to
make false rulings on matters of law (in which defendants are also denied oral
argument) and falsely charge the jury on the law itself - which occurs all the
time in tax cases.
In addition, the prosecutor can totally fabricate its prosecution by
using perjurous testimony - a perfectly routine procedure in all "tax
protestor" cases. To put it in the context of my banana example (though a
better illustration might be, being accused of speaking ill of the President),
once you plead not guilty to eating a banana, the government is now in a
position to get witnesses to falsely testify that you did, while the court is
now in a position to falsely instruct the jury that eating a banana is a
crime. Since a jury is made up of individuals who generally know ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING ABOUT TAX LAW, they can be made to believe anything the "judge"
decides to tell them. So, in case you thought my banana illustration was a
little far fetched, this is PRECISELY what happens in all "tax protestor"
cases. Such people are all tricked at their arraignments, and then
fraudulently prosecuted for doing something that is no more illegal than
eating a banana. But let's leave the subject of bananas and get back to my
"arraignment."]
Eagan:
Now, before we continue you will sit down and you will listen to my
explanation of what we are doing. Please be seated Mr. Schiff.
Schiff:
Well, I think that jurisdiction has to be established your Honor...
Eagan:
All right...
Schiff:
And I think the record ought to show...
Eagan:
The record is going to show everything that should be shown. Mr. Schiff, my
name is Owen Eagan. I am the United States magistrate. I am here for the
preliminary purposes of taking a plea in this case.
Schiff:
May I just ask is this an adversary...
Eagan:
You may shut up for just a second and let me finish. I'm here to take a plea
to this particular case. The only plea that I can and will accept is a plea
of not guilty.
[In the above exchange I sought to get Eagan to admit that an arraignment
is an adversary proceeding between me and the government, with the court
merely "judging" between us, based upon the legal arguments we make. I had
already made (and legally supported) an argument that the court had no
jurisdiction - which ALSO INCLUDED EAGAN'S AUTHORITY TO ARRAIGN ME!
Obviously, that authority had to be established before Eagan could utter ONE
ARRAIGNMENT WORD! The court was thus duty bound to hear contrary arguments
from my adversary (the government) and to render its decision accordingly.
But it is clear from the arraignment tape (as my trial itself would prove)
that my adversary WAS ALSO THE COURT! Note Eagan's comment that he was only
there to take "a plea of not guilty." But the court was on notice that I
intended to argue jurisdiction. So why wasn't it prepared to hear it? But
you already know the answer to that. So the court concocted a ruse to avoid
addressing the issue as the law required it to do.]
Continuing with the "arraignment"...
Schiff:
I'm perfectly willing to plead guilty. I will plead guilty. Can I plead
guilty?
Eagan:
No, you may not.
Schiff:
Why can't I?
Eagan:
Because I have no authority to take a guilty plea.
Schiff:
Well then let's get a judge in here who can accept a guilty plea.
Eagan:
Mr. Schiff, please sit down at this time...please.
Schiff:
I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO PLEAD GUILTY TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES AND MYSELF THE
EXPENSE OF THE TRIAL. I ADMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT I HAVEN'T FILED AND I HAVEN'T
PAID, AND IF I HAVE A TAX LIABILITY AND IF MR HARTMERE WILL SHOW THIS COURT
WHERE I CAN HAVE A TAX LIABILITY (AS A MATTER OF LAW) I'M PREPARED TO PLEAD
GUILTY.
Eagan:
All right, now I've given you your opportunity to talk so you please sit down
and listen...
Schiff:
But I'm prepared to plead guilty. [Can you believe that this is actually
happening in an American court?]
Eagan:
Please sit down.
[Suppose I had been charged with murder, rape, bank robbery,
counterfeiting, arson, mail fraud or any other crime you can think of and I
asked the court, "Look, just show me the law which makes what I'm charged with
a crime, and I'll plead guilty." Don't you think that under those
circumstances any LEGITIMATE court would have produced the law? In my case,
"the law" was the Code section that made me "liable" for the tax. Yet neither
the government nor the court COULD or would produce the law!!!]
Eagan (continuing):
It's my obligation today to take a plea to an indictment that was handed down
by a grand jury on April 3 of this year in New Haven. The only authority I
have is the authority to accept a plea of not guilty...and that is the only
authority I have. My other OBLIGATIONS ARE TO MAKE SURE that you get a copy
of the charging documents; THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CHARGE IS; and you
understand what the maximum penalty might be. Now the way that I accomplish
this is to have the U.S. Attorney explain to you and to me what the charges
are and what the maximum possible penalty is. After that, I must advise you
of what your rights are. [But apparently not of my right to be tried only by
a court that has jurisdiction]
[Additional explanation followed in which Eagan explained that he would
cover such things as: the Speedy Trial Act, the filing of pre-trial motions,
my competency to stand trial, whether I had an attorney, and whether he had
any conflict of interest. Following that, I again asked of the court...]
Schiff:
Is this an adversary or inquisitory proceeding?
Eagen:
Well, the procedure is a preliminary procedure in a criminal process. All
criminal process is adversary in nature.
Schiff:
Well, who is my adversary in this courtroom, your Honor?
Eagan:
Your adversary is the United States government.
Schiff:
Is that Mr. Hartmere?
Eagan:
Hartmere is only an agent of the government. He is not your adversary.
Schiff:
But he represents my adversary, is that correct?
Eagan:
He represents the government.
Schiff: Therefore, I assume that if I raise an issue, before you can judge, my
adversary would have to respond?
Eagan:
No, that's not so. Dispositive motions - and that's what you are talking
about, have a time and a place. [I hadn't the vaguest idea what he meant by a
"dispositive motion" But I knew that Eagan wasn't telling the truth about the
issue of jurisdiction which I knew was validly before the court.] Once the
plea is entered, dispositive motions may be filed and they will be addressed
to the trial judge.
Schiff:
If you are telling me that you can only take a not guilty plea, I could have
mailed it on a postcard.
Eagan:
No, the rules require that a personal appearance...Rule 10...
Schiff:
Why?
Eagan:
That's the way Congress deems it legal.
Schiff:
But this is supposed to be my hearing, isn't that right? It's not a court
martial?
Eagan:
This is a preliminary hearing for the purpose of taking a not guilty plea.
Schiff:
But it's also a hearing to see if you have the jurisdiction to take a plea.
Eagan:
There's no question in my mind whether I have jurisdiction or not. I have
jurisdiction.
[So here the court, without any shame at all, openly violates a
fundamental principle of federal law - it ASSUMES jurisdiction and without the
plaintiff being asked to offer any comment at all (let alone assume its burden
of proof) on the matter!]
Schiff:
Where do you have it from?
Eagan:
I don't think I have to sit here and explain it to you Mr. Schiff. Mr.
Schiff, please sit down and we're going to go through the normal procedure...
Schiff:
Your Honor, the courts have ruled that when the issue of jurisdiction is
raised...the jurisdiction facts must be established or the case
dismissed..."Jurisdiction can not be assumed but must be clearly shown"
Brooks v. Yalkie 200 F2d 663. Sir, you cannot assume jurisdiction. When I
raise the issue of jurisdiction, the government (my adversary) must prove you
have it. [So far the government, my adversary, hasn't uttered one word in
opposition to my four claims, yet Eagan decided the matter in its favor! Talk
about having a friend in court!]
Eagan:
For the preliminary purpose of this hearing I am denying your motion, if
that's what you want. I have jurisdiction. I will proceed...
Schiff:
You haven't proven it. On what basis do you have it?
Eagan:
I don't have to prove anything to you, Mr. Schiff.
Schiff:
Your Honor, if I can prove that you have CIVIL jurisdiction pursuant to
section 7402, why don't you simply ask Mr. Hartmere to tell you where you have
CRIMINAL jurisdiction? ISN'T THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH?
Eagan:
I think I explained this to you before. The dispositive motions must go to
the trial judge. The trial judge is the only one who can rule on...
Schiff:
Well, then let's get a judge in here.
Eagan:
Mr. Schiff, you are not running this court. We will run the court in the
normal way that it has always been run, under the laws and under the
Constitution of this country. [It's a good thing that Eagan pointed this out,
otherwise no one would have guessed it!]
Schiff:
Your Honor, I wasn't...
Eagan:
Mr. Schiff, SIT DOWN!
[This should give you a rough idea of how justice "works" in federal
courts, as opposed to how it supposedly works in theory. It is clear that the
court was willing to proceed even though it obviously knew it had no
jurisdiction (otherwise the court and/or the prosecutor would have offered
some proof) to do so.]
My willingness to immediately plead guilty came up AGAIN as follows...
Schiff:
I am willing to plead guilty.
Eagan:
I don't want a guilty plea.
Schiff:
Why not?
Eagan:
Because I cannot accept a guilty plea.
[Therefore, I should have insisted that, that was the plea I wanted to
make. This would have forced a rescheduling of my arraignment before the
judge. Then I could have undergone a change of heart and forced oral
argument on each of the jurisdictional issues I raised. This is what Judge
Dorsey wanted to avoid - oral argument. In that situation the government
would have to support its baseless jurisdictional claims in open debate, where
its reasoning could be challenged and where both its answers and the court's
would be recorded. Judge Dorsey, for obvious reasons, wanted to make any
jurisdictional claims and statements from within the safety of his own WRITTEN
decision. By employing that technique, both his and the government's answers
to my jurisdictional question wouldn't have to be DEFENDED IN OPEN COURT. By
contract the court, by limiting its remarks and answers to its own written
opinion, could with relative safety and impunity, base its decisions on
arguments that were patently false, incomplete and invalidly supported.]
Schiff:
Well then let's get a judge in here who can accept a guilty plea. Why should
I be put to the expense of a trial? I can't afford a trial.
Eagan:
Do you want to plead guilty?
Schiff:
I WILL PLEAD GUILTY, IF THE GOVERNMENT WILL ONLY SHOW ME WHERE THE CODE MAKES
ME LIABLE FOR THE TAX.
Eagan:
NO. You don't want to plead guilty. What you want to do is argue. [Can you
believe this?]
Schiff:
I don't want to argue. I'm perfectly willing to plead guilty. [Here, I
further reminded the court, that none of the Code sections I was charged with
violating even mention income taxes, and that the government had also refused
to address that issue too.] Does Mr. Hartmere suggest that I am evading an
alcohol tax?
Eagan:
Mr. Schiff, you are just back at the same thing all over again.
Schiff:
Well why don't you ask him where in the (Code I am required to file an income
tax return and pay an income tax.)
Eagan:
No, I'm not going to ask him anything about that.
And further on...
Schiff:
You want me to give jurisdiction to the court by entering a not guilty plea?
Not guilty to what? Where's the crime?
Eagan:
Mr. Schiff, you're arguing the case.
Schiff:
I'm not arguing.
Eagan:
The proper place to argue that defense, is to Judge Dorsey and it's through a
Motion to Dismiss (which I had already filed but which the court was now
ignoring!) Let me get on with this. I will give you the dates where you can
argue it and to whom you can argue it.
[First of all, I wasn't "arguing" the case. I wasn't arguing whether I
had filed tax returns or not, or whether I had paid the taxes or not (as a
matter of fact I had already admitted to not doing either) or whether or not I
"concealed" any income that would have been "arguing the case." I was only
arguing the issue of jurisdiction, not the case." And an ARRAIGNMENT IS JUST
THE PLACE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. Eagan's claim that I would have an
opportunity to "argue it" later was another sham. Once the court got by the
"arraignment" with its "magistrate" ploy, it refused to grant me oral argument
on the issue as Eagan falsely claimed it would do. The reasons for this have
already been explained.]
Schiff:
This is the proper place to argue jurisdiction.
Eagan:
This particular proceeding is not the proper place. [Eagan's statement was a
blatant lie as my next statement and his response prove.]
Schiff:
Jurisdiction can be raised during any part of the judicial process.
Eagan:
You raised it. I've denied your Motion to Dismiss this case.
[A moment before he instructed me to submit my Motion to Judge Dorsey.
Now he denies the Motion he just told me to submit. And if Eagan only had the
authority to accept a not guilty plea, (as he repeatedly claimed) then where
did he get the authority to deny my Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction?]
Schiff:
Without hearing from my adversary?
Eagan:
Without hearing from your adversary.
Schiff:
Then this is not an adversary proceeding?
Eagan:
I don't need to hear from your adversary to know that I have jurisdiction to
take your not guilty plea and send you on to Judge Dorsey for the trial to
take place.
Schiff:
Is this a star chamber proceeding or is this an American court where I am
supposed to have a hearing?
Eagan:
It is a courtroom where you will have a hearing. It is not a political podium
for you to give addresses to the court.
[Eagan's statements and admissions prove him to be wrong on all counts.
This was no "courtroom." I was not to be given a "hearing" And his comment
that I was turning his "courtroom" into a "political podium" was Freudian:
reflective of his obvious understanding that my "trial" was really political
in nature.]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<<End of Excerpt>>
Well there you have it, another example of "star chamber" justice -federal
style (or Nazi, have your pick).
Remember that "Eagen" the Magistrate (court clerk) would not take a plea
of "guilty"...why? Because they could not come up with a law that makes
anyone liable for the tax. This is just another example of how the "Cult of
the Black Robe" (as they are commonly referred to today) covers the IRS's
proverbial ass.
As stated before, "The Federal Mafia" and all other Schiff books will be
available at "below retail" price through DnA Systems shortly. We will also
make available, the court recording of the above exchange for those who are
not easily convinced.
[EOF]
**
STATE LEGAL CITATION SYSTEMS:
CITATION AUTHORITY EXPECTED TO BE USED IN THE HIGHEST APPELLATE STATE COURTS
(Based on a 1985 survey of the highest
appellate courts of each state. Revised
by the author in March 1991)
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Formichi, Robert E.
California style manual: a handbook of legal style for
California courts and lawyers / by Robert E. Formichi.
3rd ed. Sacramento : Supreme Court of Calif.? ; North
Highlands, CA : For sale by Dept. of General Services,
Publications Section, c1986.
This manual is written by the Reporter of Decisions of the
California State Supreme Court, and is issued under approval
of the State Supreme Court as a handbook of legal style for
California courts and lawyers.
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
Uniform Citation Forms. approved for use in Colorado Supreme
Court opinions 5/3/84 (amended 5/17/84) 2p. Lists deviations
from the Harvard Bluebook for Colorado materials.
CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
In-house style sheet which closely parallels, but does not
follow in all instances, the Harvard Bluebook.
DELAWARE SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Counsel only
"[C]itations will be deemed to be in acceptable form if made in
accordance with the 'Uniform System of Citation' ...."
Delaware Supreme Court Rule, 14(g).
This rule deviates from the Bluebook form in requiring that
citations to state reporters should not be made where a
National Reporter Citation exists.
Judges only
No citations to state reporters should be made where a National
Reporter citation exists. Examples of unreported Delaware
opinions and orders.
Delaware Supreme Court Rule, 93(c).
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Citation Guidance Memorandum. revised December 1982, effective
January 1, 1983. 6p.
"Unless in conflict with anything in this memorandum, follow
'A Uniform System of Citation' ...."
Citation Guidance Memorandum, sec. 1.
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.800, gives examples of
citations to Florida material, and to federal court reports.
"All other citations shall be in the form prescribed by A
Uniform System of Citations ...."
Fla. R. App. P., 9.800(m).
Additional citation authority
Florida Style Manual, 19 Fl. St. U.L. Rev. 525 (1991).
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Counsel only
"Any enumerated error which is not supported by arguments or
citation of authority in the brief shall be deemed abandoned.
All citations of authority must be full and complete."
Georgia Supreme Court Rules, 45.
Additional citation authority
Leah F. Chanin, Reference Guide to Georgia Legal History and
Legal Research. Appendix V. Citation Forms. Charlottesville,
Va.: Michie, 1980. (with 1983 supplement).
HAWAII SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, 28(b)(1), requires that
the Table of Authorities in briefs, contain citations to "both
the official and the national reporter system."
IDAHO SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Judges only
Internal Rules of the Idaho Supreme Court, Rule 14(e), which
gives variations from the Bluebook for Idaho materials, also says:
"If not covered by rule or statute, citations shall be in
conformity with the current edition of 'A Uniform System of
Citation' ...."
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Illinois Supreme Court Rule, 341(d), prescribes pinpoint,
official reporter, textbook and statute citations.
Judges only
Style Manual for Illinois and Appellate Courts. Bloomington:
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 1981. 52p.
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, 8.2(B)
"It is recommened that when briefs contain references to
scholarly treatises, law journals, statutes, etc.,
citations should follow the form prescribed by the current
edition of the Harvard Citator."
Ind. R. App. P., 8.2(B)(2)
IOWA SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure, 14(e), prescribes pinpoint,
official, unpublished opinion, text book and Code citations.
Judges only
Citation System and Format Guidebook. Des Moines, Iowa:
Supreme Court, 1984. 42p.
KANSAS SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
Appellate Reporter's Office Citation Manual
KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, 76.12(g) prescribes official
reporter, and Revised Statute citations.
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Additional citation material
Louisiana Law Review. Citation Form Addendum. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University, 1983. 12p. (with 1p. amendment,
dated June 27, 1983)
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Counsel and judges
Michael D. Seitzinger & Charles K. Leadbetter, Uniform Maine
Citations. Portland: Maine Law Review, 1983. v, 29p.
Harvard Bluebook.
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Michigan Uniform System of Citations, adopted by the Supreme Court,
October 4, 1971, Administrative Order No. 1971-3, 385 Mich. xxvi.
Additional citation material
Alterman, Plain and Accurate Style in Lawsuit Papers, 2 Cooley
L. Rev. 243 (1984).
John Doyle, Michigan Citation Manual. Buffalo, N.Y.: Wm. S.
Hein, 1986.
Rules of Citation. Proposed Michigan Court Rules, Subchapter
7.500, 402A Mich. 455 (1978).
Florence M. Telling & Marilyn A. Estes, Michigan Uniform System
of Citation. Rev. ed. Detroit: Legal Secretaries Association, 1982.
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Additional citation material
Citation Manual. St. Paul: Minnesota Supreme Court, 1979.
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Judges only
Internal memorandum on citation form (9/17/79). 12p. Closely
follows the Harvard Bluebook, but deviates in a few instances.
MONTANA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Nebraksa Supreme Court Rule, 9C(4) - (6)
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
NEVADA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Supreme Court Rule 16(9), prescribes the form for case
citations.
Judges only
No expectation.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
Manual of Style. Rev. ed. Trenton, N.J.: Administrative
Office of the Courts, 1979. 15p.
NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
"Any consistent method or form which adequately identifies the
cited authority and aids the court may be used."
Crim. App. R. 501(e).
"All New Mexico decision shall be cited from the official
reports, with parallel citations if available. Other decisions
may be cited from either official or unofficial reports, parallel
citations being desired so far as available to the counsel.
Unofficial citations shall always identify the court rendering
the decision."
Civ. App. R. 9(j).
Judges only
Joseph E. Samora, A Comprehensive Manual for the Supreme Court
of New Mexico and the New Mexico Court of Appeals. 2nd ed.
Santa Fe: Supreme Court of New Mexico, 1984.
This manual in turn mandates following the Harvard
Bluebook, with a few minor variations which were suggested
by West Publishing Company.
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
Counsel only
CPLR 5529(e) prescribes the form for case citations.
Judges only
Official New York law reports style manual / prepared by the Law
Reporting Bureau of the State of New York ; compiled and edited by
Frederick A. Muller. -- Rochester, N.Y. : Lawyers Co-operative Pub.
Co., 1987. 59 p. (new edition expected summer 1992).
Additional citation material
New York Rules of Citation. Jamaica, N.Y.: St. John's Law
Review, 1978. 32p.
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
OHIO SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Manual of the Forms of Citation Used in the Ohio Official
Reports. Columbus: Supreme Court, 1985. 48p.
Additional citation material
Ohio Northern University Law Review. Style Manual. Ada: Ohio
Northern University Law Review, 1979. ix, 80p.
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
OREGON SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Harvard Bluebook.
Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appendix G.
Judges only
Appellate Court Style Manual. Salem: Administrative Office of
the Courts, 1984. 26p.
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual.
Judges only
In-house style sheet.
SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook
Judges only
Internal memo follows the Harvard Bluebook but suggests variant
citation forms according to guidelines from West Publishing Company.
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, 27(h)
Judges only
No expectation.
Additional citation material
Laska, Tennessee Rules of Citation, 12 Memphis State U.L. Rev.
547 (1982).
TEXAS SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Texas Rules of Form. 7th ed. Austin: Texas Law Review, 1990.
62p.
Additional citation material
Greenhill, Uniform Citations for Briefs, 27 Texas B.J. 323
(1964).
Texas Law Review Manual on Style. 6th ed. Austin: Texas Law
Review, 1990. vii, 79p.
UTAH SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
VERMONT SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
No expectation.
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook.
Richard F. Jones, Washington Reports Style Manual. 4th ed.
Olympia, WA: Supreme Court, 1982. 37p.
WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
Harvard Bluebook
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
Counsel and judges
"The Supreme Court has adopted the citation form in 'A Uniform
System of Citations,' published by the Harvard Law Review, for
all citations in opinions and orders of the Court. The one
exception to this is that citations to Wisconsin Statutes will
continue to be cited sec. 250.70, Stats., rather than the form
prescribed by the uniform system. Attorneys who file briefs or
memoranda with the Supreme Court are requested to follow the
same citation form."
Notice to Members of the Bar, 74 Wis. 2d xxxix (November 4,
1976).
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule, 80.02 prescribes the form for
citing decisions of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
WYOMING SUPREME COURT
Counsel only
No expectation.
Judges only
Harvard Bluebook.
by John Doyle.
**
Assorted Headlines
[These originally appeared in the September 1993 issue of FACE Newsletter
(Fathers and Children for Equality).]
Are Domestic Violence Suspects Being Treated Unfairly?
By Jeff Long
Franklin County Municipal Court is the only county court in Ohio that
routinely denies misdemeanor domestic violence suspects bail, says a
lawsuit filed this week. The suit contends this practice is
inconsistent with Ohio law.
Phillip Heer, who filed the suit in Ohio Supreme Court, says rule
changes approved by Municipal Court judges in 1987 deny bail to
suspects in domestic violence and other selected cases who should be
eligible for immediate bond.
"The court has decided to write its own law," Heer said. "It's costing
people in terms of freedom. We have looked at every other municipal
court in the state and we can find no similar rules. Essentially, they
put you in jail and don't want to let you out despite what the Supreme
Court says."
Heer's suit challenges Franklin County rules that exclude domestic
violence, menacing, stalking and prostitution from the bail schedule
that applies to other misdemeanors.
Heer believes the rules changes were spurred by a case in which a
domestic violence suspect, out on bail, killed his wife.
Heer first learned about the changes through personal experience.
"In September of `91 someone convinced my wife to file domestic
violence charges and my initial bail was denied -- since dismissed, all
expunged," Heer said. "And she convinced the court I needed
psychiatric help. I spent nine days in jail and 31 in a hospital.
When I looked at the law, I realized it was illegal."
Heer said the rule changes are out of line with what's permitted by the
Ohio Revised Code. He produced minutes of a judges' meeting from
August 1987 in which then-Municipal Court Judge Deborah Pryce suggested
changing the bail schedule to exclude domestic violence "and treat it
more like a felony for bond purposes only," the minutes said. Pryce is
now a Congresswoman.
"There is such a pattern of victim protection that they're ignoring the
law," Heer said. "They're jailing people for one to three days when
they should have immediate bail. You're presumed guilty when an
attorney tells a wife, `Charge your husband with domestic violence, it
will help your divorce case.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Women tend to be told, if they're getting divorced, `File domestic
violence (charges) against your husband. It'll help you get custody'"
of the children, Heer said.
Source: _The Columbus Dispatch_, September 3, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Teresa Liston, administrative judge for the court, said she
responded to earlier inquiries by Heer about the legality of the
rules.
"Mr. Heer is apparently not happy with our response," Liston said.
"Mr. Heer is not an attorney. He has his own interpretation of what
the rules are. It's been fully reviewed. The court is in full
compliance with the law."
(Editorial Comment: The key words in the above article are in the last
paragraph. Judge Liston states, "Mr. Heer is not an attorney."
If you go into a court or administrative office, you're often greeted
by, "Are you an attorney?" It's as if there are two classes of
citizens, attorneys and all you other people who waste the court's
valuable time. It seems as though a law degree confers a higher class
of citizenship.) [FrogNote: Perhaps this person might appreciate a gift
subscription to the Frog Farm!]
Source: _The Other Paper_, August 26, 1993
[...]
The Lawyerless: More People Represent Themselves in Court, But Is
Justice Served?
By Junda Woo, Staff Reporter of _The Wall Street Journal_, Contributed by
Rama Kalra
Attorneys Get Too Expensive in Many Family Cases; Self-Helpers Clog the
System -- The Arnie Becker Syndrome
Dressed in a white T-shirt and flouncy miniskirt, Susan McHugo-Inouye
looks flustered as she rises to speak. She hesitates and looks around
for help like a junior-high-school student giving her first oral
report.
But this is no classroom, it is a courtroom, and the scene of a bitter
child-custody dispute. Although Mrs. McHugo-Inouye appears to gain
confidence part way through her presentation, her argument seems
disturbingly disorganized and short on legal reasoning, especially
compared with that of her opposing counsel. When he interrupts her to
object, she clearly is thrown off balance. He summarizes the case in a
memorandum to the judge; she does not.
Two weeks later, the judge issues his decision. She loses.
They are the lawyerless, and more and more of them are demonstrating
their limited skills -- not to mention their casual dress -- in
courtrooms across the country.
Especially in family court, the numbers are exploding. In Des Moines,
Iowa, 53% of all such cases feature litigants representing themselves.
In Washington, D.C., the figure is 88%. As these hordes of nonlawyers
stumble along, they clog systems that aren't designed to accommodate
amateurs, creating a host of new challenges for court administrators.
The lawyerless often aren't flying solo by choice. A family lawyer
often can collect $10,000 for a complex case, a hefty chunk of it up
front and nonrefundable. After the economy began to slow five years
ago, the percentage of nonlawyers in such cases began increasing
sharply. Meanwhile, divorce rates remain high.
Lawyers haven't lowered their fees to lure back the lost business,
either. Plenty of higher-income people still are getting divorced and
paying hourly rates of $100 and higher. "Lawyers have priced
themselves out of the middle-class market," says California Superior
Court Judge Roderic Duncan, who wrote a book on navigating the state's
municipal courts without an attorney. "They're not interested in that
kind of work."
This, of course, raises broader questions about obtaining justice. "A
system that presupposes the existence of two represented parties is
breaking down," contends Sara-Ann Determan, moderator of a sparsely
attended panel on middle-class legal services at the recent American
Bar Association convention.
The head of a leading attorneys' group, the American Academy of
Matrimonial Lawyers, is unapologetic. "I wish this were a world where,
realistically, the poor could have the same justice as the people who
aren't poor, but that's not the world," says Arthur E. Balbirer.
"It's a shame. Justice sometimes is expensive."
If you can't afford to pay, there are few alternatives. Legal-aid
budgets are drained as it is, with legal-assistance groups routinely
turning away all divorce and custody work. And private lawyers,
despite much public horn-blowing about pro bono work, are showing no
inclination to fill the void. Many attorneys consider family law
emotionally draining and excessively time-consuming.
In cases of serious injury, poor clients can get a lawyer by giving him
or her a percentage of an ultimate damage award; but such fees aren't
permitted in family law cases.
So, few volunteers step forward. Says Mr. Balbirer: "It's like asking
a corporate executive, `Why don't you, for two months, give your salary
to the homeless?' Not to be a wise guy, but if we're going to say that,
we should apply that standard down the line."
Another reason some litigants shun lawyers might be called the Arnie
Becker syndrome, after the unctuous attorney in TV's L.A. Law. Many
are leery of slippery divorce lawyers -- with some justification. A
1992 study by the New York State Department of Consumer Affairs found a
"pattern" of certain divorce lawyers litigating excessively just to
ratchet up fees. Others unscrupulously demanded huge payments on the
brink of trial. Still others overcharged, then abandoned clients when
the money ran out, according to the report. Acting on the study, the
New York court system yesterday added several new family law
regulations.
Nevertheless, for some, like Mrs. McHugo-Inouye, the experience of
going without a lawyer is nightmarish. An unemployed teacher of
English as a second language, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says she couldn't
afford a lawyer to fight her ex-husband's demand for custody of their
twin daughters. "I could have borrowed from my parents, but I didn't
want to," she says. They had already lent her money during a previous
custody battle with her ex-husband.
This was either the fourth or fifth dispute for the couple -- the
parents can't even agree on that. The girls, 12 years old at the time,
had lived temporarily with their father for almost a year. He wanted
permanent custody and had retained an attorney to get it. The showdown
took place at the Family Court, Fifth Circuit, in Kauai, Hawaii.
>From the moment she filed papers stating that she no longer
had a lawyer, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says, she knew she was in trouble.
She says a court clerk made her retype the entire form, because instead
of using the words pro se, she had used pro per, an equivalent Latin
phrase used in many states to describe someone representing herself.
"They will hand you a form and say nothing," Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says.
"If you ask for assistance, it's like it's really, really troublesome."
The Kauai court administrator says he doubts this occurred.
In any case, many self-represented litigants can recount similar
experiences. In part that is because courts are so underfunded and
overloaded that it is a genuine strain to give self-help litigants the
extra attention they need. And many of the lawyerless test the court's
patience. They turn in briefs scrawled in longhand, present arguments
hysterically and display unrealistic expectations about just how much
the system can do for them. Mrs. McHugo-Inouye, for instance, was
disappointed that court staff wouldn't let her borrow a typewriter to
retype filings. [FrogNote: Not surprising. If you don't have legible
handwriting, then a typewriter, or even a simple computer and printer,
can help immensely. Don't get compulsive, but keep it neat.]
Even if they want to help, court employees, judges and attorneys are
hamstrung by ethics codes that require the court to remain neutral and
refrain from coaching or helping any party. It can be painful for
workers and judges to see litigants adrift, losing out on opportunities
they know nothing about. But it is also improper for judges to give a
break to an unrepresented litigant just because he or she doesn't know
the law.
"You can't say, `I'm going to weigh this person's argument 60% because
they're unrepresented, and I'll weigh the attorney's argument 40%,'"
says Judge Clifford L. Nakea, who presided over Mrs. McHugo-Inouye's
case. [Should we be expecting our adversary to help us in any way,
shape or form? If they do, what is that help worth? Is it true that
you get what you pay for -- in this case, nothing?]
Mrs. McHugo-Inouye's biggest mistake was a whopper. On the day of
final arguments, she had been under the impression that Judge Nakea
would simply interview her daughters on the day of the court session
and announce his ruling later. Instead, the judge finished
interviewing the girls, entered the courtroom and asked Mrs.
McHugo-Inouye and the opposing attorney to begin final arguments.
Judge Nakea explained that all sides had agreed on such a trial during
an earlier conference. Somehow, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye didn't get the
message. Small wonder she seemed unprepared and distracted during her
seven-minute argument.
"If you don't know what the procedures are in the court system, you get
killed," says Barbara E. Handschu, former head of the New York state
bar's family-law section. "You get all sorts of complications that lay
people may not realize." In divorce cases, for instance, the tax and
insurance ramifications of splitting up can get extremely arcane. [Yet
another reason not to obtain "marriage licenses" in the first place.]
Still, not every lawyerless litigant gets pummeled. Deborah Crosby, a
high-school drawing teacher in Chappaqua, N.Y., was divorced in 1987
but is still battling her ex-husband in a messy visitation dispute.
She used lawyers for most of the fight but last October she decided she
had had enough: "In one year, I'd spent $30,000 for nothing --
absolutely nothing. So I said, `How could it be worse if I represented
myself?'"
She felt confident she could do so because she has a master's degree -
albeit in art education -- and enjoys research. Ms. Crosby contacted a
group of legal-reform activists for tactical advice. She discovered a
free law library at the local courthouse. By the time a major hearing
rolled around in June, she was comfortable citing precedents and
objecting to irrelevant testimony. "I've learned a lot," she says.
By traditional legal standards, she has made some mistakes. She wasted
a lot of time writing up a subpoena that she never served. She lost a
battle to avoid paying her husband's legal costs after he won an appeal
that she had initia
ted. But she has also argued calmly before hearing
examiners and fended off her ex-husband's efforts to get more visiting
time with the children. Also, in a fairly difficult maneuver, she
managed to get a new law guardian appointed for them.
Would she hire an attorney now, if she had the money? Laughing, she
says, "I've been burned so seriously, it's like asking me if I would
ever remarry. It would have to be an incredible attorney, with an
incredible background." [Good for her!]
Despite Ms. Crosby's experience, most legal experts agree that people
who march into court without lawyers are at a disadvantage -- and one
that is likely to become a fixture of the new legal environment,
especially for the poor. As of 1990, only one legal-aid worker existed
for every 7,808 people below the government's poverty line, while one
private attorney existed for every 339 U.S. citizens.
If there is any help on the way, it is likely to come in the form of
innovations by court systems to make self-representation easier and
more effective. In Maricopa Superior Court in Phoenix, the court's new
services include a do-it-yourself divorce video, which plays almost
continuously in a courthouse waiting room, and an on-the-spot attorney
who charges $20 for a half-hour preparation session. In one branch of
the court, there is a touch-screen computer that asks a series of
questions and prints out completed court filings. The computer
features an on-screen legal dictionary and even plays Vivaldi when it
is idle.
[How quaint. Irrelevant, and perhaps even inappropriate, but quaint.
Don't fall for it. As the sovereign, YOU ARE THE COURT. Don't expect
your adversary to help; don't expect the referee to do anything more
than provide the place and the time.]
[Rest of article deleted]
Source: _The Wall Street Journal_. (c) 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.,
August 17, 1993
Forma Pauperis. [Latin] In the character of a poor person -- a method
by which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately
permitted to lose his case.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
**
The Frog Farm Archives
| The Frog Farm:
| 91Jun25 3:11 pm
| from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo (The trouble with censorship is ** *****)
Lichen @ Garbanzo>>...could you explain common law trust? I couldn't
find any explanation in my home library. :] I am, though, more
cognizant of what common law itself is.<<
A Common Law Business Trust is a private organization set up through a
properly prepared contract. Assets are exchanged within the company.
The contract, which is set for a specific period of time, may be
renewed continually. And as the beneficiaries pass on, no death taxes
or probate costs are incurred. ALL trust records are PRIVATE.
Nothing is Publicly recorded.
A properly designed and operated Business Trust can provide the
ability to control, manage and limit both estate tax and current tax
liabilities. The business trust is not subject to Corporate tax on
dividends. If a trust distributes all of its income each year it is
allowed to treat the distribution as a deduction to the Trust which
means NO TAXABLE INCOME!
A business trust will provide important estate considerations.
Because the business and its assets are owned by the trustee, there is
no probate, No Transfer of Ownership, No Disclosure of Assets (i.e.
privacy is maintained), and No Estate Taxes. The business itself may
continue uninterrupted with a successor/operator/manager/agent
appointed by the trustee (including a surviving spouse, children, or a
hired employee.) You set it up NOW to preceed your untimely death,
God forbid. Privacy is fantastic because NO documents of the Trust
are Public Record.
The proper design and use of a business trust will provide a high
degree of liability protection. With a business trust, potential
liability claims are limited to the assets of the Trust. This
protection can be enhanced by separating the high-risk assets back
from the Trust. For example: A Hotel might separate its parking lot,
pool, bar, restaurant and vehicles each into separate trusts to
protect the asset and isolate the potential liability. The less
assets you have in each trust, the less that trust could lose if it
was sued. If your business lost the court case, the person(s) suing
are limited to taking only what is in that certain trust. The assets
of a Business Trust are exempt (in the absence of a fraudulent
conveyance within one year prior to a bankruptcy) from the claims and
actions of personal creditors. This works easily as well for personal
assets too! Taking your eggs from being in one basket and spreading
them around in other baskets to limit any possible damage, so to
speak.
You or your business can have as many trusts as you want. The more
you separate you or your companies assets into different Trusts the
less liability you or your business has.
91Jul23 9:13 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Greetings from Alaska! People tell me that here on "The Last
Frontier" so many people ignore Uncle Sam on April 15th that this
"state" has the highest number of IRS agents in the field. There are
very high numbers of "independent businessmen" here, which is a class
that the IRS is determined to reduce if not wipe out entirely.
Also, there are a large number of people who travel sans benefit of
government permission. The second day I was here, I helped a guy who
had no license or registration tow an "illegal" trailer bearing one of
those large shipping containers for about 30 miles on a four-lane
freeway into Anchorage. The trailer had no lights on it, and the
lights on his truck didn't work. When I asked him whether he was
worried about it, he said that he wasn't, and that lights aren't
needed here in the land of the midnight sun anyway. I thought brake
lights and turn signals were only a courtesy to other people on the
road, but this guy didn't care at all. The notable near-absence of
police on the roads made any concerns about being stopped negligible.
The next day, this same guy lent me his Oldsmobile so I could explore
Anchorage. The California registration on it expired two years ago,
yet it has never been questioned. I enjoyed my ride unconcerned about
it.
Barry Wong>> Jim, would it be a good idea for Lichen to "really
respond, giving full particulars of why you're here, for in that way,
you can get this data into the record"? I thought you weren't
supposed to ever answer any questions, except with other questions.
Doesn't answering the question, even to get it into the court record,
put you under the jurisdiction of the court? And isn't this what you
DON'T want to do?<<
Right, Barry. There's always a way to phrase a response as a
question. And the point is that so seldom does a court really have
jurisdiction, except in the case of a real common-law crime such as
murder or robbery etc. that the first thing you should do is challenge
jurisdiction, and make the prosecution, not the judge, prove the
jurisdiction of the court.
Lichen>> Also, the stuff like "Why are you here? -- Because I'm not
elsewhere!" is entertaining, but I don't think it would really impress
the judges/jurors.<<
Who wants to impress judges/jurors?? The judge isn't there for
anything except to commit reversible errors, and the jury should be
making its decision based upon facts, not impressions. I really don't
care what the judge or jury think, because if a case of mine gets that
far, where a jury is impaneled, I'm counting on winning on appeal
already. Juries are too ignorant to understand a lot of the things I
rely upon to win, so why waste time worrying about them and what they
think?
b0b>> Frog Farmer - "family Bible"? That's really bizarre! Does
that mean that only Christians can get a passport without a birth
certificate? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?<<
You think that's unusual b0b? How about the fact that recently
Congress passed a law declaring the U.S. to be a Christian nation? I
can't give the cite for it while I'm here in Alaska, but if you remind
me, I'll post it for you in October when I get back to my reference
materials.
Lichen>> Still, there ought to be an alternative way to do things.
Personally, I don't have my birthdate in the family bible. It's
recorded and documented in my scrapbook, though...<<
There OUGHT TO BE an alternative way? If so, then YOU "ought" to
do it in that alternative way. Natural people existing at the
Common Law don't need someone else to tell them what customs to
follow - they create their own. YOUR scrapbook?? When did your
birth get recorded there? Years after the fact? Hardly a
documented record! More like hearsay! You don't need a Bible -
three witnesses attesting to a birth are sufficient and could be
written anywhere.
Odin>> Lichen: Yeah it would be good if there was another way to
get a passport that is non-Christian.<<
Why do you need a passport? Why must you travel under an
equitable contract? I don't need a passport to travel to another
country. I just need the permission of the sovereign of that
country to enter, and I can get that by asking for it. Why do you
want to travel sponsored by the admiralyty jurisdiction located in
Washington D.C.?? Such a privilege requires a corresponding duty.
Attorney JS (quoting the ABA)>> "The exclusionary rule affects
only a relatively small percentage of arrests and searches."<<
Yeah, like 2 out of 10, or less. It isn't like it couldn't
apply to ALL searches and seizures - it applies to any and all
searches and seizures involving yours truly, because the first
thing I do when engaged by a government agent is invoke it. I
demand that they state their probable cause to believe a crime has
been committed; I demand a 4th Amendment Warrant; I demand that
counsel be present for any in-custody interrogation. These
demands are necessary to invoke the rule.
Attorney JS>> "Thus, the exclusionaly rule appears to be providing
a significant safeguard of Fourth Amendment protections for
individuals at modest cost in terms of either crime control or
effective prosecution."<<
True. It provides a safeguard for those who know how to use it,
which are so few that there is hardly any effect at all on either
crime control or effective prosecution. After all, most real
criminals are more ignorant than their law-abiding fellow
citizens.
Nombrist Beor>> In a court at law, you are the sovereign holding your
court. You enter your motions on the record and state the reasons for
them (the sovereign is the author and source of the law!) You give all
interested parties a chance to respond, otherwise, your orders go
through uncontested. If another sovereign contests your order, then
you have a choice of either appointing a master (referee) to decide
the problem or use a jury for the same purpose. The master or jury has
no power beyond deciding the law and the facts at law. If either
disobeys, they are in contempt of either your court or the court of
the defendant.<<
Yes, and from what I've heard, there is often quite a bit of
contempt of court committed by the clerks, judges, and sheriffs who
may be involved, since few of them are familiar with "at Law"
procedures. And then the sovereign involved often makes the mistake
of listening to the bad legal advice those people give out, to his
detriment. When you move "at Law" you really have to be on top of
things. You can't look for help or advice from the people who would
like to see you fail.
NB>> As prima facie evidence of the law and the facts, you enter into
the record your tacit procuration or your constructive notice.<<
Both are beautiful tools for making record in your favor. Lawless
public servants often fail to take them seriously, and then it is too
late! Their failure to respond, often the result of their own
arrogance, convicts them on the face of the record. No jury is
necessary in those cases, judgement being entered on the record by the
clerk as a result of the wrongdoer's default.
Jim Bianchi>> Bush's new "anti-crime" bill HR-1400 is actually an anti
-civil liberties, anti-constitution bill.
It sure is, jimbo. That's why it's so important to learn how to
deny these fools the jurisdiction they need in order to make their
actions look legitimate in the eyes of the world. Remember, any law
that is an unconstitutional violation of your rights is a law you have
to challenge personally. An unconstitutional law is void and of no
effect. This is just another one in a long string of unconstitutional
decrees that the people accept when thrust upon them. It will apply
to most folks, but not us, right?
JB>> WHAT CAN YOU DO? Phone or write your congressman and tell them
that you want our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties preserved,
and request s/he vote against HR-1400.<<
Very good advice for government subjects to follow, but what do I
do when there is no one representing ME? I think I'll just have to
hone my court skills in anticipation of yet one more assault upon my
rights under color of law. Same old story, nothing new, just the
players and code numbers they use are different.
Barry Wong>> I think the point of the ownership discussion is that the
state ACTUALLY HAS AN INTEREST in certain pieces of property (e.g. a
car) because we contract away our rights to absolute ownership by
registering them (and such). In other words, practical ownership
works in most cases (especially if you're conforming to the statutes),
but when you start trying to claim all of your constitutional rights,
you need to have as clean a slate as possible.<<
Hi Barry! I think you've got it! I think you've got it! The
rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. The pain in gain stems
mainly from the brain!
That is to say, our grief at finding out that we really don't own
all those expensive things we worked so hard to acquire is a result of
the fact that we didn't question the reason for the need of a
signature when we acquired them! Now I sign everything "without
prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207"!! Have you seen jimbo's rubber stamp? It
leaves a memorable impression!
Nombrist Beor>>...I find it much more challenging and my conscience
feels better about doing it by 'their' rules.<<
Yes, anyone can cheat at a game, but a real master plays by the
rules, and plays to win! And what's so gratifying is that your
opponents are not used to playing by the rules themselves; in fact, I
dare say that they CANNOT play by the rules since their playing skills
have atrophied due to the fact that most of their opponents lose to
them by default, and few of their opponents know enough of the rules
to be able to call them on any violations they may commit. A player
who knows the rules, who can call all violations when he sees them
occur, and takes the time to develop a winning strategy, finds it
almost DIFFICULT to lose unless he throws the game intentionally!
NB>> The biggest challenge is that there are all these people who want
to point fire sticks at me among other things, so unless I want to go
to jail and such, I got to beat them at the game.<<
Yeah, the macho fire-stick thing is a problem nowadays with all
these gung-ho ex-Marines they like to hire. That's why I like to put
them at ease immediately by offering to get into the back seat of
their cars if it would make them any happier. After all, they can
always ask me to leave! Their fears arise when they imagine the
possible forms of resistance you could offer if they chose to arrest
you. So I eliminate that fear immediately. So far, I've never been
taken into custody. It kinda reminds me of a scene from the movie
"The Golden Child", where Eddie Murphy encounters the police in the
airport upon arriving from Nepal. They were there to arrest him, and
you could see the fear and worry over how it would go down showing on
their faces, when Eddie Murphy went up to them with hands together
outstretched, as if to ask to be handcuffed, and said, "I have been so
bad, you should arrest me right now! I should be punished!" The cops
actually took a few steps backwards, and didn't arrest him! Anybody
see that scene?
Barry Wong quoting Frank Zappa>> I don't think it's any accident that
the educational system in America has been brought to its current state.
Because only a totaly uneducated mass of people will be baffled by
balloons. And yellow ribbons and little flags and buzz words and guys
saying "new world order" and s**t like that, I mean only a person who
has been dissuaded from any kind of critical thinking and doesn't know
geography, doesn't know the English language - I mean if you can't speak
English, then this stuff works on you.<<
You can thank the valiant efforts of the National Education
Association for the wonderful job of diseducation they have performed
upon our populace. It's no accident.
Frank was one of the early influences on me during my teenage
years, especially that album that parodied the cover of the Sgt.
Pepper album. I listened to it between news reports of the 1968
Democratic Convention riots. I remember enjoying civics class. I
remember thinking how great it was to live in America where you were
free to do as you liked as long as you didn't infringe upon anyone
else's rights. But by my senior year in high school, I saw it as
AMERIKA. It seemed to me as though the government had lost sight of
its true purpose. Exercise of rights was seen as being a threat to
the administration. And from 1968 onward, I watched as things got
worse and worse. I had to finally be driven to my personal limits of
endurance in 1979 before I said "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to
take it anymore." From 1979 through 1984 was my trial by fire, where
I challenged the government on every issue they cared to prosecute.
In the year 1984, I saw it as being almost a sacred duty to fight "Big
Brother". After that, it became almost a hobby. I became a collector
of motions and briefs and defenses, much like anyone else would
collect works of art. I began to collect court citations like others
would collect baseball cards. I stood on street corners handing out
leaflets printed at my expense, trying to inform the public of their
plight, to no avail. It seemed hopeless. Then I got my computer and
discovered BBSing. Surely the higher educated class of computer users
would be thirsting for the type of information I had gathered. Nope.
But if I could just find A FEW who would listen, if only to reassure
me that I was not the last of a nearly-extinct species, that would be
enough. The search through the myriad message bases available to me
had the opposite effect of what I had expected. Not only was there no
interest in these matters, there was hostility and resentment that
such things would even be brought to the public's attention. But then
there were a few enlightened sysops who knew that even unpopular ideas
should have an outlet. Thus was The Frog Farm born. Today, much of
the hostility on my part has been replaced with understanding and
compassion for the plight of the unknowing public, probably to the
degree that I have extricated myself from the snares they so willingly
embrace. It's good to see that the message has been transmitted to
the next generation. That's all I could ever have asked for.
Barry Wong>> 1) Can a person whose rights were not guaranteed by the
Constitution when it was written (for instance, decendants of black
slaves) claim the same rights that you do?<<
It was not RACE which made a person a slave. There were free
blacks at the time of the writing of the Constitution. And many
slaves were freed by their masters prior to the Civil War. To answer
your question, ANY HUMAN BEING may claim, exercise and defend his/her
inalienable rights, at any time and in any place, so long as they
haven't contracted away those rights in return for some payment or
other "benefit". It should be noted that the Constitution
distiguishes between those "free persons" and "those bound to service
for a term of years" (Article 1, section 2). It also recognizes the
right of a person to change his status, through contract, from that of
"free person" to one "bound to service for a term of years", and it
will not interfere with that decision once it has been made (Article
1, section 10). So, now we must ask the question, have the
descendants of the black slaves chosen to be free, or have they, like
most others today, chosen to be bound to service for a term of years??
Did they apply for and use social security numbers? Do they claim
privileges of citizens of the Admiralty jurisdiction? Maybe they gave
up the rights able to be claimed by a free man. In that case,
claiming them would be an act of fraud, would it not?
91Sep21 10:26 am from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
I've noticed over the years that many people who suddenly find out
about sovereignty, and realize that they waived theirs long ago, seem
to always want to justify servitude and disparage sovereignty, rather
than find out how to regain their original superior status.
Many, who express some interest in regaining it, go as far as to
inquire if there is some form they can fill out and hand in to some
government agency and thereby become sovereign. Upon finding that
this is not the case, they lapse back into defending their subject
status, and they attack sovereignty as being unnecessary,
unattractive, even untenable. They do this without knowing anything
about it. At the same time, most do not know anything about the
subject status they are defending. The major defense seems to be that
if sovereignty was such a good thing, then why hadn't they heard about
it in school? (THEY DID!) Or why don't they personally know several
people who exercise all their rights in the face of government
opposition? If sovereignty was so good, they seem to be saying, then
it would be far more popular. I think they credit the general
population with far too much intelligence. They seem to think that
anything worth knowing is covered by the TV networks and media news -
that surely, if it is important, it is covered by the local college's
curriculum. After all, how can anything so important be missing from
the everyday common knowledge of the average person? If they could
only accept the ideas of the existence and utilization of
disinformation and brainwashing...
Up here in Alaska, sovereignty seems to be better understood.
Just today there was an article in the newspaper about it, and about
how the Natives up here are finding new and better ways to take
advantage of it. Up here, people seem to know that there are two
kinds of natives: sovereigns and subjects of Uncle Sam. Still, few
question the fact that very few Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/etc. are
sovereign.
One thing that newspaper article pointed out was the fact that the
U.S. government doesn't respect or recognize the rights of the
sovereign Alaskans. It challenges them every chance it gets, and only
backs off if the sovereign Alaskans defend their rights. It also
pointed out that in the face of this government opposition, many of
the sovereigns choose to waive certain rights in return for the
government's recognition of others, as though the hassle of defending
all their rights wasn't worth it. So, it seems to be understood that
certain people have certain rights, that the government violates them,
and that some people will give up rights that everyone knows they have
just because defending them seems to be a "hassle". Isn't that
interesting? As the Supreme Court has said, rights will only be
afforded the belligerent claimant in person. And they can only be
maintained through "sustained combat". Do you think the newly "free"
Russians and other Eastern European peoples will be allowed to have
their rights, or will they too be "subjected" under some alien
commercial jurisdiction controlled from London and Zurich? Like the
World Bank??
91Oct13 6:08 pm from mad mooney @ Garbanzo
My FOG Index program rates the original Constitution with the first 10
amendments (Bill of Rights) as being at a 17.9 grade reading level. After
I added the next 16 pseudo-amendments, it dropped to 16.9. Just for a
reference, the Magna Carta came out at 15.0 (although it's MUCH harder
to read in reality, I think, but the program can't make allowances for
all the grammer differences for a document with the middle english style).
91Oct13 10:04 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Hey Mooney! I noticed that your program says that the Constitution
and Magna Carta require a grade level significantly higher than most
people possess in order to be understood. Does this tend to explain why
the United States has the highest percentage of its people incarcerated
of all the countries in the entire world? Or does it tend to show the
relative efficiency of our educational systems?
What grade level is required in order to expect a person to be able
to program a VCR? I've heard that the majority of VCR owners cannot
program their machines to record a future television broadcast. Does
this mean that we who can read, write, and understand English will
become the new elite?
b0b>) Wasn't it Reagan who admitted that he couldn't figure out how to program
his VCR? Or was it Bush? Anyway, I think that's pathetic. In our house,
we have a VCR programming specialist. Mrs. b0b has a high school education,
with a weakness in math, but she was able to master the VCR from reading the
manual.<<
We (you & I & Mrs. b0b) are lucky enough to be from the time when
they used to hold you back a grade if you couldn't do the schoolwork.
And that motivated most of our generation(s?) to apply ourselves, study, and
pass. But today, students are advanced to the next grade even though
they cannot do the work. This past weekend, I encountered a fourth
grader who needed his father to tell him what the labels on some
cassettes said. He could not read them. This same youngster then went
on to tell us how he had learned in school that wood could melt if left
in the sunlight. I asked him where he had picked up that piece of
misinformation, and he said he learned that in the third grade.
b0b>> I think the real problem is that many Americans never learned to follow
directions. Mrs. b0b learned by sewing from patterns; I learned by building
models. If our school system doesn't teach people how to "RTFM", how can we
expect Americans to learn to use the high-tech devices we love to create?
I expect the great majority of Americans to become functionally
illiterate, as time goes on, and as as time goes on and the educated ones die
off, and to become a pool of uneducated unskilled labor for the emerging new
European economy, much as Mexicans functioned in the past for United States
businesses. The United States is already the world's largest debtor nation,
and is well on the way to achieving true "Third World" status.
FF>> But today, students are advanced to the next grade even though they
cannot do the work.
b0b>> Not true, FF. My nephew is repeating the fourth grade right now. He
didn't pass his tests, so they flunked him. Three of our four daughters
received a very good education in the public schools here in Sonoma County,
and the fourth dropped out but later got her GED, which is a tough way to
get that high school degree.<<
Today at the gem show we met a Petaluma high school teacher of 15
years. She confirmed that they do pass kids who can't read, because they can
only hold them back a year or two - after that the older kids pose too much
of a physical threat to the younger students. It was her opinion that many
of today's students had brain damage caused by the drugs the mother was
taking while pregnant. She said the "crack babies" are just beginning to
appear in the first grade now, and she anticipates things getting much worse
in the years to come.
I'll tell you about some evidence of mass illiteracy (or maybe it's just
mass stupidity?) that I witnessed today. I was in traffic court in Santa
Rosa this morning from 8:30 until 11:30 AM in order to witness a few
students trying out some new procedures (new to them). Many defendants
expressed the thought that while they were supposedly NOT GUILTY, they would
fork over anywhere from 20 to 50 FRNs just to avoid "hassle". At about 8:45,
the magistrate told one spunky individual who chose to plead "not guilty"
and have a trial that while he DID have the right to a speedy trial within
45 days, the court's calendar was full, and the soonest that a day could be
scheduled for a trial was AFTER the 45-day limit. The magistrate then asked
the man if he would waive his right to a speedy trial so that the trial
could be held. The man agreed to waive the right! If he had not done so,
he would have won by default, but here this guy that was motivated to plead
not guilty was so ignorant that he gave the government another chance to
convict him. What's worse is that at least 9 other persons waived their
right to a speedy trial after pleading "not guilty". And many others plead
guilty while also expressing the idea that they were really NOT GUILTY. So,
none of them were capable of understanding the ramifications of the full
court calendar. None of them understood the fact that if they had demanded
a trial that they would probably have won by default. And so, I watched as
the magistrate skillfully sheared over 12,000 frns and hundreds of hours of
"community service" from the bleating sheeple.
One fellow in his 20's was there with his father. His "crime" was
speeding. He was given over 200 hours of work to perform. I invited them to
stay and witness what would happen to our students, whose "crimes" were even
more "serious" - driving without a license or registration. The magistrate
was saving our students for last so as not to have any witnesses who might
learn something. They even went to the extent of having the bailiff poll all
persons in the courtroom as to why they were there before calling the
students forward. The father & son stayed at my suggestion, and the bailiff
came over and asked them "what's wrong?" hoping that they would leave.
Because of their presence, the magistrate denied motions that had been
granted in other cases, and went so far as to lie about some supposed "case
law" that had changed since the last time the motions were used. He was
asked what the name of the case was, and what court it came out of, but he
could only say that he "read it somewhere". This didn't hurt the student's
cases, but it did go to persuade the father/son duo that we were wrong.
Outside the courtroom, we explained what had happened, and that indeed we
did have information that would lead to a dismissal of any case where there
was no victim. The father couldn't believe it, and asked why, if it was
true, didn't all the lawyers use the information to get their clients off
the hook. He asked why it wasn't popularized in the media. I guess he never
heard of the LAW ENFORCEMENT GROWTH INDUSTRY. Anyway, it seemed that the
paperwork necessary just to make the motion to quash was too much for this
father/son duo, even though it was only 4 pages. It seemed that the son
would rather spend 200 hours at some menial labor rather than disturb the
peaceful tranquility of his brain by trying to understand concepts that were
new to him that would require some thought and investigation on his part.
They declined our invitation to attend one of our study meetings. THe father
asked if our "group" had a "charter".
91Nov04 10:33 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo
Timechild>> Hey, friend, next time you (or one of your students) are
going to court about driving without license or registration, can you
let me know? It would be worth missing a class or two to watch those
methods in action. I have only been in a courtroom once (and under
unhappy, unenjoyable circumstances, at that) so it would be a good
experience as well as an educational one. I have a little fear of
courtrooms, since I have the suspicion that they might bring back bad
memories, but in any case... let me know...
Hey, friend, my days of going to court over the license issue are
over - I won that issue 3 times years ago, and they just don't bother me
over it anymore. Since then, when I am accosted by a police officer and
hassled for not having a license, something in what I say and do makes
them let me go without writing a ticket.
You say it would be worth it to miss a class or two to watch what
happens in the courtroom. I don't think so. Here's why: when the judge
sees that a crowd has gathered to watch what is going on, he will
invariably rule against the defendant, even if his ruling creates a
reversible error, rather than let the audience see our procedures work.
This doesn't really hurt our case, but it leaves the wrong impression
with the audience, who may not understand and who may think that the
defendant "lost" and that indeed you DO need a license, which is what
the judge is hoping the audience will think. This happened last time.
They scheduled our guys for 8:30 A.M but then they made them wait until
11:30 while they tried to empty out the courtroom by taking everyone
else first, even those who were sheduled later than 8:30. Finally,
everyone had been dealt with, yet there were still about 15 people in
the gallery. THe judge had the bailiff personally go to each person and
ask why they were there! They wanted no witnesses for what was going to
occur. I asked a man and his son (who was just sentenced to 200 hours of
slave labor, so-called "volunteer work") to stay and watch, in the hopes
that they would learn that there was an alternative. The judge appeared
disturbed that they remained, and the bailiff came over to them asking
"Is there some kind of a problem?" Finally, they couldn't stall any
longer and they called on the two remaining defendants, who just
coincidentally were the ONLY defendants all day to have filed any
paperwork with the court, and who NOT COINCIDENTALLY FILED THE EXACT
SAME PAPERWORK. Their papers challenged the jurisdiction of the court
to even hear the case without there being a formal complaint filed. The
judge (really not a judge, but a magistrate) ruled against them both,
claiming that there was "case law" that effectively overturned the laws
our guys were relying upon. When asked just what that case was, the
judge said that he couldn't remember, but he knew there was such a case
because he "remembered reading it somewhere". So he set another court
date for our friends to appear again.
The man and his son appeared disgusted, having believed that our
strategy "didn't work", while we all knew that the magistrate was lying
just for their benefit. This was confirmed several days later when the
magistrate, attempting to back up his actions, provided us with two
cases which he contended upheld his position that no complaint was
necessary. What he produced were the two exact cases we relied upon to
prove that one WAS NECESSARY. He was intentionally mistating and
misinterpreting the cases, which was great for us, since appeals courts
know how to read a little better than traffic magistrates. But the
point is that the man and his son thought we were the losers, because
when we didn't "win" right there in front of them, they went off and
didn't want to hear anymore of what we have to say.
This is probably what would happen if you took off from school to see
a court appearance with us. I'd tell you that it was at 8:30, and you'd
get frustrated and tired and probably not be willing to stay until 11:30
or even past lunch until 1:30 to see what happened. And even if you did
stay, without being familiar with the issues and the paperwork, what
happened in the court would probably not make much sense to you, since
there is very little talking and the whole thing is usually over within
5 or 10 minutes, most of it being based upon paperwork previously filed
with the court. And then there would probably be another hearing
scheduled. In one of my cases, there were 9 attempted arraignments
before a plea was even entered!
Now, if you are really interested in learning something, you should
buy a few books and READ the pertinent parts. You should get a
paperback copy (West's Annotated Editions) of CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT,
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, CALIFORNIA
EVIDENCE CODE, CALIFORNIA & U.S. CONSTITUTIONS, MAGNA CARTA, &
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE. You can get the Constitutions & Magna Carta in
one book free from your assemblyman's office in the State building in
downtown Santa Rosa. You can get the Vehicle code for 3 bux at the DMV.
After you get the books, you can come here with any questions you might have.
As soon as I see that you are serious, I'd invite you to one of the private
study group meetings we have, and you'd be prepared to go into the court
without fear. FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real.
FF sez:
>> Anyone serious about defending their right has to be ready to appeal
to a higher court if ruled against in the lower courts. Those who do
appeal these prosecutions tend to have the cases against them dismissed,
so there is no record to show up in the legal journals. <<
And Somebody (??) replied:
>Surely you jest. The courts of appeal reverse a small minority of
>cases, regardless of merits. And, the routine denials of appeal
>never gets published, whereas its the dismissals that would get some
>attention, merely by virtue of the appeal being seriously considered.
Frog Farmer further clarifies:
I did not mean that the APPEAL WAS DISMISSED, I meant that the
original charges against the defendant are dismissed. I would have
never believed this to have been the case unless I saw it personally
happen to me in my case. There are a lot of appeals that are made that
are never heard, because hearing them would create case law that might
get reported, yet they are not dismissed because they were done
properly. So what happens? - the government throws in the towel and the
lower court "dismisses the charges" as though the whole thing had never
happened. There are no records of these occurances. They make the
appeal moot.
Clifford Johnson>> ... so let me point something out. Typically, after
every suit, the losing party has a right to appeal _as_of_ right_ to the
court of appeals. There is no "denial of appeal" (although, if the
appeal is clearly without merit, it can be dismissed as frivolous, and
the lawyer sanctioned). Further appeal (e.g., to the Supreme Court),
requires a party to petition the Court to here his case; this is a
petition for "certiorari". If the Court grants certiorari, the court
hears the case. The failure of the court to grant cert does not mean it
agrees with the lower court, only that it does not want to hear the
case. Maybe it thinks the time for that issue is not now, maybe it just
can't fit it into the docket.<<
And maybe, more likely, it was disqualified according to the
Ashwander rules.
**
[You'll want to clean this one up before printing it out and using it. It
can be a very useful little tool.]
P U B L I C S E R V A N T ' S Q U E S T I O N A I R E
Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide
certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy by
requiring Federal agencies...to permit and individual to determine what
records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by
such agencies."
The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary in order
that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence
of information to this agency.
1. Name of public servant...............
2. Residence......City.....State......Zip......
3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant
is employed........supervisor's name......
4. It's mailing address...........City......State....Zip......
5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States?
6. Did public servant furnish proof of identity?
7. What was the nature of proof?..............
8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which
authorizes this investigation?
9. Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing
the questions he will ask?
10. Are the answers to the questions voluntary or mandatory?
11. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or regulation,
or are they being used as a discovery process?
12. What other uses may be made of this information?
13. What other agencies may have access to this information?
14. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose not to answer
any part or all of these questions?
15. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be
made...............
16. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'?
17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information
from any third party relative to this investigation?
18. If so, the identity of such third parties..........
19. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be
initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek?
20. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to
me being maintained by this agency? If yes, which?
21. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was
supplied by another agency or government source?
22. May I have a copy of that information?
23. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files
will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he
is employed? If not, why not?
If any request for information relating to me is received from any
person or agency, you must advise me in writing before releasing such
information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or
criminal action as provided by the act.
I swear (affirm) that the answers I have given to the foregoing
questions are complete and correct in every particular. ___________
Date: ____/_____ Witness:____________ Witness:_______________
Authorities for Questions:
1,2,3,4 In order to be sure you know exactly who you are giving the
information to. Residence and business addresses are needed in case
you need to serve process in a civil or criminal action upon this
individual.
5 All public servants have taken a sworn oath to uphold and
defend the constitution.
6,7 This is standard procedure by government agents and
officers. See Internal Revenue Manual, MT-9900-26, Section 242.133.
8,9,10 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A)
11 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1)
12,13 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e) (3) (C)
14 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (D)
15 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
16 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A)
17,18 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (2)
19 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5)
20,21 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
22 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (1)
23 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (10)
**
Administrivia: Famous Pagans in the Patriot Community Revealed!
(Stolen from Tom Jennings' "Famous Homosexuals in Fidonet Revealed!". Thank
you, Tom, for providing the only BBS software I could find for my dad's DEC
Rainbow 100+ "way back" in 1983, and helping (along with other sources) to
introduce me to the vast electronic networks outside my local area code...)
Freshly back from vacation, your humble moderator is about as refreshed and
relaxed as is possible. Four days off in the woods, no hot showers (ice-cold
water being the Great Equalizer of all males), full of such sanity-saving
elements as beating the hell out of big drums and falling in love/lust with a
good friend (stressful, unrequited, but definitely not a problem for anyone
involved, and still more enjoyable than not...). Yes, the horrible truth is
out; your humble, self-proclaimed atheist/objectivist/etc moderator is a
"pagan"! Gadzooks! Is nothing sacred?
Well, to be totally accurate, a pagan is anything that's not a Christian. Hmm.
George Gordon devotes a bit of explanation somewhere to why he doesn't refer
to himself as a Christian, since supposedly, Christ's followers didn't call
themselves Christians, but Christ's enemies did. Perhaps an interesting side
topic; perhaps not. In any case, yes, I'm most decidedly atheist, and have
been ever since I was introduced to the concept of "god(s)". Insofar as the
"festivals" are concerned, I enjoy the company of the friends from my town who
usually go as well, and a vacation's a vacation; some people like to strap
sticks on their feet and go sliding down dangerous mountaintops, I like to
beat on a piece of wood and animal skin for hours on end. Despite the
collectivist mindset that can prevail among most folks of a Leftish bent, and
despite the "tribal", mind-numbing effect that mass hypnotic drumming has, I
still do it. I find it very relaxing, and it doesn't change my philosophical
beliefs at all, and that's all that matters.
During my intellectual "coming-out" during high school, most of the more
open-minded and tolerant people I met were of the pagan (read: Wiccan or
related) persuasion, and a good deal of my friends still are. I've learned, of
course, that prejudice and ignorance are everywhere, but on the whole, the
majority of the pagan community would be less opposed to the concept of
individual sovereignty than most, if they could work past their underlying
collectivist premises. (This is one thing that I particularly notice these
days; I seem to automatically analyze everything I hear "in the background",
and try to extrapolate the underlying philosophical beliefs that drive the
convictions the person is stating. And it's easy to see the contradictions in
most of the statements people make.) In any event, other people's religious
beliefs don't bother me one bit, unless they're used as a rationalization for
the initiation of force.
An example of other contradictory religious folks is John Redelfs, moderator
of ACT's mailing list (act-request@bolis.sf-bay.org to subscribe, I think;
devoted to traditional CFR and Trilateralist world-views) posted an article
to alt.conspiracy recently explaining his "Principles of Liberty", which
stated, among other things, that belief in God was a prerequisite for
Natural Law and Rights. And this is a view I disagree with. But I also don't
believe that a sense of "religiousness" necessarily makes someone a bad
person. I'm going on record here to recommend that he read James Donald's
essay on Natural Law and Rights. (If anyone ever gets sick of hearing me
plug this, feel free to speak up; even though it probably won't stop me,
it's nice to have feedback... ;) The more relevant negative aspect I find on
the act list is the expressed yearning of some of the members for "a modern
George Washington" to rally them all around.. something, I guess. I quietly
make changes in my own life, and spread this junk around, and hope that some
people find it of value, and perhaps of use.
As a just-for-fun exercise, I'm in the process of writing up a sample brief a
la Gordon for claiming the right to free speech without any "religious basis".
Gordon, Bruce McCarthy, et al., all use this odd mixture of ecclesiastical and
Biblical references in with their legal citations, all of which I see as
unnecessary; ALL persons who are capable of exercising and defending Rights,
already possess those rights. Religious freedom is a good issue, but there are
better ones, and I contend that the right to freedom of religion must also
necessarily equate to freedom FROM religion! The 1st Amendment's original
intent was to protect "freedom of conscience" -- the power of free will; to
decide, and accept the consequences of your decision -- in essence, as many
modern-day self-proclaimed pagans would put it, "to do what thou wilt, an
['as long as'] it harm none". I've actually been working on this brief for
over two years now, and still haven't shown it to anyone; obviously, this is
not good! These things should be used, not gather dust. So I'm attempting to
get myself jump-started enough to at least get it into presentable form, and
should get it here Real Soon Now.
Enough babbling about me; it's time for some real mailing list news. (My
mailbox had SIXTY-TWO (62) new messages in it! PLUS I had to grab the last
four days' worth of Libernet[-D] Digests, and then read my newsgroups of
choice (pared down to 18, two of which see posts less than .4 times per blue
moon). Maybe it's time to get a life (or at least start logging on less
often). This installment, incidentally, is the largest one so far, but this
can easily be explained by noting the presence of the DnA article. I'd
really appreciate getting some comments at this point on your opinions of
the overall quality of the list; as a matter of fact, what would be great is
to have you send "ratings" from 1 to 10 on each individual article in all
the installments that you've had time to read and formulate an opinion on,
as well as whatever comments you have (like "too technical!". I'll ignore
any complaints about spelling and/or grammar unless A) I wrote the item in
question, and B) your complaint actually has some merit. ;)
How You Can Post To Usenet By E-Mail: There are other services available
(including the much-discussed anonymous servers), but the one I primarily use
is at the University of Texas. You post by sending mail to the group name
@cs.utexas.edu, replacing the dots in the group name with hyphens, i.e.,
alt-society-sovereign@cs.utexas.edu
Don't forget to use an appropriate Subject: line. Note that this method
precludes posting to groups with hyphens in their names, so if you have a
burning need to post to a group meeting this criterion, try either
pws.bull.com or news.cs.indiana.edu. Here, you can type the exact name of
the group instead of converting periods to hyphens, as in
alt.sex.kibo.bite-me@pws.bull.com
alt.farce.kibo.bad-actors.charging-elephants@news.cs.indiana.edu
Note that I haven't tried either of these latter two sites in quite a while.
If you make sure to keep all the header lines together, you should be able
to use your text editor to add header lines or modify existing ones, such
as adding newsgroups to the Newsgroups: line (but try not to get carried
away... ;)
A subscriber suggested another actual question for the FAQ. I think it's an
excellent one, and here's my rough draft for the answer.
QUESTION: "What does FrogFarmer advise that I should do (or not do) if I am
arrested? What cases should I cite? What rights should I demand? What
shouldn't I say?"
ANSWER: An answer to these questions might be construed as legal advice. The
Frog Farm does not provide legal advice, nor do any of its participants, who
merely speak from their own experience and knowledge.
However, it is possible to be less cryptic than this.
There is far too much material under this heading to fit here, unless
condensed greatly. An example might be:
- Learn how to read and comprehend a percentage of the English language,
as described earlier in this FAQ.
- Obtain the relevant law books (your state's Code of Civil Procedure, Penal
Code, Rules of Court and Evidence Code, or the appropriate federal books
for a federal case) and read the relevant sections.
- Type up and send Constructive Notices and Notice of Dishonor within 3 days
of receiving your ticket or being arrested.
- Type up subpoenas for all arresting officers and the person who signed the
complaint and schedule a motion hearing where you will make a Motion To
Quash the Summons, at which time you obtain your depositions from the
arresting officer.
You should prepare your list of questions to ask the witnesses when you have
them on the stand at the motion hearing. Their answers will cause the judge to
dismiss the charges, if your questions are the right ones. Your questions have
to be based upon the codes, and the answers will go to show that the
procedures followed by the police were all invalid and that the persons you
subpoenaed are all guilty of perjury. The beauty of it is that you don't even
have to testify yourself, and the cops are so uneducated in law that they will
not even know that they are convicting themselves out of their own mouths.
However, this ONLY WORKS when there is no VICTIM or INJURED PARTY. It also
only works when you UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE DOING, and are prepared
to FOLLOW THROUGH to the utmost (see Wisconsin v. Yoder, summarized below). We
will assume that these two conditions are true, for the purposes of this
answer.
Every arrest, detention, stop and confrontation with government officials is
different, and it is impossible to imagine (in order to pretend) all the
different things that might be said, and when. Each and every situation is
unique, and this is why the question cannot be answered. However, a general
consensus has developed, which can be summarized relatively easily as follows:
-:- Never ask, "Am I under arrest?"; rather, always ask, "Am I free to go?".
An arrest is a certain procedure that must meet certain criteria in order
to be done lawfully. You should not "help out" with your own arrest by
merely leaving it up to them to say "Yes", but force those responsible
to go through all of the due process you demand.
-:- Don't hassle people about your rights. Respect their point of view, and
where they let you, educate them about the law. Make your demands with a
quiet voice and a friendly smile. If someone is insensitive about your
rights, have the patience to wait until you get to the court room to
reclaim them. Always be friendly, regardless of how they treat you...
you'll get even in the courtroom. It can be very risky to their financial
health to ignore or abuse your rights. But it can just as easily be risky
to your physical health if you ignore or abuse their overly inflated sense
of importance. There's no sense in taunting bulls; just wait for them to
get out of breath charging around before sticking it to 'em.
-:- Before asking if you are free to go, try to ascertain just who it is who
is accosting you by asking their identity. If the answer is that it's a
government agent of some kind, ask if they will fully identify themselves.
The answer is usually "yes", so pull out your PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONAIRE
(included elsewhere in this installment) and ask them to kindly fill it
out. They will usually decline, so offer to fill it out for them if they
will answer the questions. If they refuse, inform them that their refusal
to fully identify themselves and cooperate in your investigation will be
reported to their superior, and suggest at that time that they call for
back-up for several reasons:
1) They have violated your right to the requested information
2) They have proven themselves incompetent to understand the law
3) You now have reason to doubt whatever they say regarding their
being an officer of the law (they could be a highway robber,
trying to get you to drop your guard). If they can manage to get a
few more people in police cars to the scene, you can probably rule
out their being a robber in costume.
When the superior officer arrives, go through the whole thing again. If
things get nasty, you could demand their probable cause for believing you
guilty of committing a crime, and demand a 4th amendment warrant and
counsel present before you answer any in-custody interrogation. This
would invoke the exclusionary rule.
-:- Carry copies of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, to make sure they've
all been informed regarding the fact that your fingerprints are private
property which cannot be taken over your objection without a valid court
order.
-:- Don't refuse their offer of "counsel" straight off. It can be useful to
get the counsel to refuse to help you on their own, or you can fire them
in open court for refusing to obey your instructions, or for attempting to
waive any of your rights, like the right to a speedy trial. Always make it
clear that they are not representing you, but merely serving as counsel.
When you finally do go to court, make friends with the clerk by conforming as
much as possible to the clerk's demands for format, timeliness, etc. (provided
that you don't give up any significant rights in the process). Respect the
legal maxim, "The law does not bother with trifles."
Don't necessarily exact the Shakespearian pound of flesh. Like the government
courts, you can put abusers on probation. They then know that when you could
have put them in jail for their "white collar" offenses, you didn't. When
dealing with errant public officials, you can refer to those situations, and
let them know that although you were easy then, they shouldn't push their luck
now. :-)
But the most important thing is attitude. If you're a free person, if you've
rescinded all contracts with government, then act like it. Exercise your
rights, and when necessary, defend them as passionately as you exercise them.
A relevant case is Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), which established
the tests necessary to distinguish a belief based on CONVICTION rather than
PREFERENCE. The importance of the distinction is that according to the Court's
decision, only CONVICTIONS are protected by the Constitution. The test
consists of five major circumstances you must maintain your belief in the face
of, which are:
1) Peer pressure
2) Family pressure
3) Threat of lawsuit
4) Threat of jail
5) Threat of death
So one must be smart enough to understand all the responsibilities involved in
having sovereign status, and maintain one's beliefs in the face of all
opposition. Otherwise the court will view your stance as a convenient excuse
(preference) to get out of the "legal duties" incurred by subjects ("income
tax", "license fees", etc) -- i.e., they will assume you are lying, and that
you really ARE a sheeple, one who is subject to their jurisdiction.
[end of proposed FAQ addition]
(So how's that, everyone? Please, comment.)
I was also asked, "Shouldn't all the case citations on the FAQ and elsewhere
on the distribution list contain the YEAR of the decision, not just its book
and page number?"
It would probably be a Good Thing, yes. I have made the provided citations as
complete as possible through my own research, but a great deal of them have
not been checked. Any misattributions should be fixed, so if you spot any, let
me know so I can fix it ASAP.
Finally: Yes, you read the headline way back there correctly -- we have an
ACTUAL SUBMISSION! I'm posting this anonymously because I don't know if the
subscriber who sent it intended it to be as such, even though it's merely
forwarded from Libernet (and therefore, some of you have seen it already). So
in the future, please let me know if you want your submissions to be
attributed to you when they're posted.
Here it is:
>From: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: The Empire's serfs revolt?
To: Libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 10:54:00 -0400
Here is another New York update, pulled off the UPI wire today the 16th.
"Albany - A lawsuit with potentially serious implications for the New York
State Government is back on track after an appellate Court ruling today.
Gadfly Robert Schulz of Glens Falls is suing New York over the way the
government borrows money. The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court had
thrown out the action, saying Schulz had NO grounds to sue. But the Court of
Appeals overturned that ruling, and the mid-level Court today formally said
his case can proceed.
If successful, Schulz's latest lawsuit could threaten million's of dollars
in State spending. Schulz claims officals violated the State Constitution by
NOT getting voter's permission to sell bonds."
Mr. Schulz has filed over 30 suits as a common citizen in the last 15 years.
He has no law training other than personal experince, and is now trying to
form a state wide "All Countys Taxpayers Union" to take local goverments to
court over constitutional violations. ACT-U has formed in over 60% of the
counties in New York, and is chalenging the lack of voteing on School budgets
in small cities.
Mr. Schulz was first told that his suit agianst the New York government over
the sale of state property to other governmental agencys, had no bases. It
seems that tax-payers can not question the spending of elected officals. Mr.
Schulz replied something along the lines of "I am not suing as a taxpayer, but
as a voter." Well it turns out that voters do have the right to defend the
constitution.
If you would like more on Mr. Schulz, Email this address.
William Kone Kone@courier1.sha.cornell.edu
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither
restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.---Thomas Jefferson
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From: kone@courier1.sha.cornell.edu
Subject: more on Mr. Schulz
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 18:05:00 -0400
Well here is more on ACTA, the group for
med by Mr. Schulz. I will post the
entire flyer on Libernet.
The Address is ACTA,
Box 177, Star Route
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)-656-3578
"ACTA'S UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE: ACTA's motto is "Deeds, not Words." That's
why we believe in fighting government wrongdoing in court as advocates, rather
than on the courthouse steps as protesters. ACTA has become so effective,
that Government officals tried to get Robert Schulz - ACTA's founder - barred
from court for life! Fortunately, they failed.
Government wrongdoing poses a greater threat to our freedom and our way of
life than all the petty crooks and white-collar criminals combined. For
ecample, in New York it's unconstitutional to spend public money to benefit
private intrests, but it happens all the time because nobody challenges it.
More money is taken illegally on a single day by state and local government
than by all the pick pockets and con-artists in a lifetime. ACTA is
determined to stop this.
Every citizen has the right to take their government to court "pro-se"
(without an attorney). ACTA has proven that ordinary citizens can challenge
their government in court and win. We encourage every citizen to stand
"eternally vigialnt' and, when necessary, go to court to protect our freedmos,
and stop government misdeeds and wrongdoings. As an ACTA member, you will not
be alone."
William Kone
----- End Included Message -----
And that's it for installment #11.
Be seeing you...
**
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
