1. Potus out of town, all is pretty quiet for now
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Mon Morning! Gold catches a bid +2.7 to 1256, while Silver is +16 to 1696. Crude still moving up 48 to 5115. The USD is down 6 and breaks 97, 9696.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 5/13/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1227.70-- UP 0.80 Silver $16.40-- UP 13 Oil $47.84-- UP 1.62 USD $99.13 -- UP .61
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Contempt of Court and you, me and the man inside the moon.

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by michael59, Nov 30, 2016.



  1. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    622
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Seattle
    Oh, yeah, I remember him sayin something like that in one of those PoC movies, I think I've seen all of em.

    You sure you can file a writ of Mandamus? I don't ore-gone law but I read about what the writ was about in wickipedia. They'll probably tell you to be patient, set down and STFU.

    All apologies to tazz, but I sure wouldn't be trying to tap no judges phone call, unless you just like to pull a pit bull's tail.

    BF
     
    michael59 likes this.
  2. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    9,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Sounds more like a writ of "Quo Warranto" may be in order...

    Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") they claim to hold.
     
  3. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    No, no I just read it about an hour or so ago in the annotated judicial section of the Oregon Constitution as I about have all my ORS stuff lined out. I wrote it down so will have to use the flip book to find it.

    K, here it is: Under "limited jurisdiction" test district court is "inferior court" for purposes of mandamus, and therefore circuit court could issue writs to it. {now I haven't read the pertinent case cite but it is} Mattila v Manson, 287 Or 235, 589 P2d 675 (1975) So I am thinking I can get this out of the inferior court and up into a court of record.

    And, no Bottom Feeder it is only the state that has to secure .....oh hell IDK my brain is frazzeled. But i am thinking I already got him recorded so it is sail on down the highway because it is too late now. He threatens to put me in jail, and darn. Just darn, I spent two hours researching out the relevant factors in determining whether proceeding is criminal. And, I could not find number three "Collateral Consequences." Which are: can't vote if convicted of.... can't drive if convicted of....and such but there was nothing about 'contempt of court' except "I am going to put you in jail." But I am not sure that can be viewed as a collateral, darn.

    edit: This is the stuff I have been reading https://issuu.com/oregonlaw/docs/oregon_sol_handbook;
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  4. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    So BarnacleBob are you saying I use the Quo Warro? on the inferior court or use it in the district on the inferior court? *I just hate it when I cant get the font back*
     
  5. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    9,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    If I remember your case correctly, your judge no longer has the authority to hear the case as the statute of limitations has expired. The common law writ can be used to enforce the limitations challenging the courts authority to bring the case to the bar....
     
    michael59 likes this.
  6. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    "Allegations that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as Truth unless denied by affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or his attorney, whether such corporation is public or private and however created."



    ===================================================

    RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLY thing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellation into a corporate fiction form. To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer) instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!


    By the opposition successfully alleging that you are a corporation, you become caught in a Catch-22. Commercial courts cannot deal with flesh-and-blood People-they deal only with legal fictions (ACTORS) and you are entirely out of place in a commercial court unless they somehow manage to join you, the Living Soul, with a corporation (ACTOR), which is how the court obtains jurisdiction over you. However, corporations cannot speak for themselves; they depend upon an attorney to be their mouthpiece and represent them before the court. You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts. The judge will take silent notice immediately.

    Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

    Having traversed down the slippery slope which leads to your own destruction, it is virtually impossible to then reverse course and disassociate yourself from the legal fiction (ACTOR). Once you've PROVED you are a fraud by agreeing to be a corporation, a powerful principal of law rules your affairs: "No truth can come from a fraud".Avoid that slippery slope in the first place by declaring "That's not me!" as your AUTOMATIC RESPONSE to any presentment, oral or written, where the ACTOR's name is used instead of your Christian appellation. "I don't know whose name you have there, but that's not me!"


    ================================================


    make sure to change the perjury statement at the end to put yourself outside of federal jurisdiction as follows:


    “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and ability, but only when litigated with a jury in a court of a state of the Union and not a federal court.”

    Remember that crimes can only be punished based on where they are committed, and if your perjury statement reflects the fact that you are outside of federal jurisdiction, they can’t penalize you no matter how hard they try or how many threats they make



    ===============================================

    No court and no judge can overturn or disregard or abrogate somebody's Affidavit of Truth. The only one who has any capacity or right or responsibility or knowledge to rebut your Affidavit of Truth is the one who is adversely affected by it. It's his job, his right, his responsibility to speak for himself. To issue his own affidavit because no one can speak it for him. No one else can know what your truth is or has the free-will responsibility to state it. This is YOUR job.

    ----------------------------------------------


    U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61
    (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398;
    Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct.
    2502;
    and
    Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21);

    WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity
    officials and judges are deemed to know the law and
    sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful
    deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot
    plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it
    is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no
    immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United
    States of America.

    See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
    "When lawsuits are brought against federal
    officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official
    capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the
    powers) and lose the shield of immunity."









     
    michael59 likes this.
  7. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    14,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    Fighting the system is HELL !!
    They hold all the cards & all you can do is guess what they are holding.
    AND if they think that you have figured it out, they just deal themselves another hand !!!
     
    michael59 likes this.
  8. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    The UNITED STATES is a private corporation (and the states, counties and townships are all subsidiaries) so why should I care what they claim?

    If they don't have jurisdiction over me...who cares.

    If THEY make the claim, THEY have to prove jurisdiction and whatever they claim. However, if you walk into their courts and you argue with them or start trying to use their motions and procedures or if the judge tells you to do something and you do it.....are you not submitting to his authority or to their jurisdiction???

    Do you really think they are going to let you win?....NO, however, the last thing they want is for you to record documents on the public record that expose their game.



    The info below is in regards to an IRS case, but the procedure is the same for any PRIVATE court


    -------------------------------------------------------------------


    What IRS/CRA want is for you to create a controversy. They make this ‘amount owing’ so ‘off the
    charts’ that you will either telephone or write to them about this ‘outrage’ thereby creating a contract with
    them. This is all they need to enforce their nonsense. I do not contract with thugs. They are worse than loan sharks.

    If you argue, then you have created a controversy and the entire issue can go to court in order to be adjudicated. If you simply tell them you don’t want to contract with them where is the controversy? What is there to judge? The only reason any matter ever goes to court is because the officers of the court know that at some point you will unwittingly grant them jurisdiction over you. Until you do this, they cannot hold you –no matter what you think you might have done.


    Call it luck but one day I got a (signed) letter from some hotshot at the IRS stating that my account is
    ‘paid in full’ and apologizing for any inconvenience. The only explanation I can think of is that I never
    testified, argued, or contracted further with them; I only asked questions.
    You might have read recently about the pilot who won against IRS in Federal ‘court’. She won because she had documented that she had continually asked IRS to provide the law compelling her to pay tax on her income and they had failed to respond. Her affidavits proved they had defaulted so the judge ruled in her favour. I know of a fellow in BC who did the same thing. CRA failed to respond to three of his letters – they dishonoured him – and the judge declared, “Case dismissed!”


    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    The above is from Mary Croft.....google her and download the PDF file
     
    arminius, TAEZZAR and Bigjon like this.
  9. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    14,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    I have heard your position from others & I don't disagree, it seems to be the best so far, but the fight seems different for each individual's case.
    I have belonged to many anti tax groups over the years & watched most of the members end up in jail.
    Poor old Irwin Schiff died in fed prison, I knew him when he had a radio program outside of Las Vegas.
    Anti tax atty's Jeffrey Dickstein & Larry Beecroft fought so hard that Dickstein was forbidden to enter a fed tax court.
    I belonged to Peymon M's anti tax group & a couple others that I don't recall their names.
    None of these guys were ever very successful. But when they did win a case, they bragged like all hell.

    BUT what do you do when they violate the Fourth Amend. by seizing assets with an invalid warrant & tell lie after lie?
    You must enter their arena & play their game AND I found out it is a very long (4 years) no win battle.
    As for jurisdiction, you claim it, they ignore & continue on.
    Yes the system is corrupt, in all ways possible.
    Plus, your taxes pay the tyrant in the black dress, his/her henchman (fed. atty.) & you pay for one of their club members to represent you.
     
  10. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I get that TRYNINE but I seem to be way past the point of questions. though this one:
    ; does bear merit. So it is either an affidavit or a declaration and skip the mandamus is what you propose?
     
  11. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    I remember your case Taezzar, about them breaking open the safe in your son's house.

    I do believe I sent you this very same info back then.

    As for Beecroft and Schiff..I believe they are both lieyers are they not??
    They are part of the system and no they would not be able to opt out, besides did they endorse private credit in the first place?????
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  12. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    I know I gave this info to you before





    Title III, "Pleadings and Motions," Rule 9(a) "Capacity," Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:
    "When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party's capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include supporting particulars.


    * This is an "Affidavit Denying Existence of Corporation" ("Specific Negative Averment") per Rule 9(a) above, Pleading Special Matters, requiring the IRS/Government/Treasury Dept to respond by affidavit, both written in longhand in red ink and notarized in red ink and sent to me via the Notary Public, and further requires that you prove:

    a) All of the various fictitious, non-existent, undefined assemblages of all capital letters, e.g. "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE," etc., legally exist, i.e. are solvent, have standing in law, and can be present in a court; and

    b) Each has a proven contractual nexus with all the others, including the artificial person represented by the corrupted, all-capital-letter version of my true name.



    As for what you require them address in an affidavit TO YOU... is up to you...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mandate since 1935 from Washington is that all the state governments standardize their state rules, procedures and statutes. References given here use the Texas code, however there are equivalent sections in each of the other state rulebooks from which to derive similar authority.

    TRCP Rule 52 was cited in:
    Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest 2nd, page 5,
    as follows:
    "The failure of an adverse party [i.e. you] to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact."


    So, when you receive a presentment (bill, citation, tax bill, lawsuit, summons), you are alleged to be a corporation simply by how your Christian appellation is styled (all-capital letters) on the presentment. If you consent to that allegation by remaining silent during the time given to responding, it amounts to acceptance of your corporate status (acquiescence by silence). The fact that the opposition puts a case number or file reference or license number on the presentment constitutes a claim number that completes the process of creating a private corporation without your awareness. Thus, for that particular matter, you are presumed to be a corporation unless you rebut it (contest it) with an affidavit sworn under penalties of perjury.


    -------------

    Also, see this case below in regards to Specific Negative Averment per Rule 9(a)

    Refer to Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe, 621 SW 2nd 466, which held as follows:

    Plaintiff pled defendant as a corporation.
    Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to TRCP 52 and 93 that he was not a corporation. Thus, such fact was established.


    -----------------------

    acquiescence by silence


    =====================================

    I also suggest that you read and learn this as well.



    PEOPLE or CITIZEN WHICH ONE ARE YOU?


    http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

    .................................................................................................................................................................

    I agree. Best to escape jurisdiction if you are the defendant. That is not too difficult if you have not caused an injury. Everyone should know that in nearly every state, the rules of court rule the court. Do not search for any answers in code, if the answer is in the rules of court. You will only get confused.

    And if you do go to court, you had better claim to be one of the people (important to reserve all rights). Juries for equitable causes (nearly all causes can be equitable now) are only advisory. If you go to court and want a jury, you have better demand a common law jury. If you're the plaintiff, sue in dollars in lawful money. Not $. Peaceful possession is a very important component concerning property. Anyone who has a better claim should have made the better claim. When they do, ask for title. They won't have it either. Your possession without title wins over non possession without title. This is also an equitable win, as equity will keep that status quo of you having possession.


    -----------------------------------------------


    “Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.”
    U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  13. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    You are just funny. NO, just funny the last thing you wrote. here I will quote:
     
  14. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Just do not ask how I f'ed the above post up because I have tried to fix it a couple of times.....

    just expand the quote thingy.
     
  15. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    14,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    TRYNEIN, I am in no way suggesting you are at the level of what I have posted below. I am only trying to expose & inform our group to what is out there & my experiences with them. T.

    I think Schiff was real. Becraft ( I had misspelled it) was a turd. Sometime in the early 1990's, I was invited to sit at dinner with Becraft & Dickstein. Dickstein seemed real, but Becraft let his true colors show, he was in it for the bucks.
    Another one not to trust is Peymon. I started with him in his infancy, in his apt. in Tustin, Ca. & later he moved up around Hesperia, Ca. he is a slick snake oil salesman.
    I found this link that lists the charlatans in the tax movement. I put an *asterisk in front of the ones that I personally knew. I joined many tax groups for knowledge & found them to be dangerous. I never followed their teachings, thankfully.
    The one thing I learned from Peymon's "Freedom Law School", was to navigate a law library, something that we all should know.

    So, not to discredit your info, but I have come to the realization that the courts are corrupt BEYOND our capability to understand what it is that they do, other than to control us & extrapolate ( inferring unknown values from trends in the known data) our wealth from us !!!!!!

    One last demon in the club is Sherriff Richard Mack, I was deeply involved in his "Constitutional Sheriff's & Peace Officer's Association".
    One day, I mentioned to Mack my belief that Peymon was a crook & Mack told me they were great friend's & I was wrong. That was the end of me & Mack. Mack has gone downhill & I hear he is critically ill.

    I want to show this list to our group, as an FYI of how many bad groups/people are involved in tax/law scams.
    I show this on Peymon, as I was more involved with him than all the rest of them. I did meet Joe Banister & Mack thru Peyman.
    I was highly suspicious of Banister for years, I just couldn't buy his story.

    http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/quatloos.com/Peymon Mottahedeh -- Quatlosers Hall of Shame.htm

    Peymon Mottahedeh
    These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors.
    100 Q
    Peymon Mottahedeh
    Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate infamous tax scam artists. Trying to figure out who qualifies isn't that tough.

    You know you're a scam artist when other scam artists call you a scam artist. Quatlooser Peymon Mottahedeh, who runs the bogus "Freedom Law School" based in prestigious Phelan, California (near Adelanto, California, which is best known for parking old jets in the middle of the desert for those of you not familiar with the area). The move to Phelan was a downgrade from FLS's previous digs, a low-dollar apartment in Tustin, California.

    Freedom Law School, not being even as legitimate as most beauty colleges, heavily markets a collection of "Freedom Packages" designed to ensure that you'll never have to pay taxes again. Their Royal Freedom Package ("For those who wish to live free And be treated like royalty!") offers a collection of the same books and tapes that many tax protestors have relied upon right up to time of their sentencing hearings. The package also purports to fund your defense against the IRS or any other administrative authorities, presumably by the "Freedom Law Dream Team" (Peymon, plus Dave Wellington, Ed Bruning, Dr. Robert Clearkson, and Paul Ballmer -- none of whom are practicing attorneys, just by the way). You get all this for a mere $6,000 up front and $2,000 per year -- pretty pricey when you consider that most of Freedom Law School's clientele are tax protestors working cash jobs cleaning windows or chopping firewood.

    But wait! For those who don't want or can't afford the Royal Treatment, Freedom Law School offers a "Simple Freedom Package" for only $4,000 and $700 per year, that basically gives you everything that the Royal Freedom Package does (i.e., nothing of value), BUT which also claims to "educate the said public servants" so that presumably they will see the light and not pursue you. Good idea.

    A unique aspect of Peymon's scam is that he alludes to connections with other tax scam artists who wouldn't give him the time of day. Fellow tax scam artist and Quatlooser Devvy Kidd wrote an article blasting Peymon and Freedom Law School for falsely claiming that she and Bob Schultz would speak at his 2001 "Freedom Rally". According to Devvy, "This is very disturbing and in my opinion, out and out fraud. Peymon has been selling tickets to an event when he's known weeks in advance that two of the 'hot' names he has listed as key note speakers on the front page of his expensive color brochure, had both declined the invitation. Knowing that neither Bob Schulz nor Roscoe Bartlett would appear at his event, he still put out the brochure through a mass postal service mailing (10,000 copies) and has it posted on his web site."

    Even Devvy now warns about Peymon:
    I feel I must warn you to stay away from Peymon Mottahedeh. While I strive to be fair to people, in this instance, I will not remain silent. Peymon is a merchant and a hustler. He sells packages that claim to "keep the IRS out of your life forever."

    I have confronted Paymon about the three federal liens sitting against him down in the LA area were he lives. I asked him point blank: Why, with all this hot shot, sure-fire knowledge he has about the IRS and "getting them out of your life forever," how come he can't get the three liens placed against him removed?

    His reply was that he didn't want to pay the money (more than $40,000). I told him that's not what I asked him. If you have the formula with all this expensive "stuff" you sell, why can't you get your own liens removed? He had no answer. I don't like this kind of situation and I cannot trust someone who can't even fix his own problems, much less someone else's. To me, credibility is everything and Peymon has none in my book.
    Fellow tax scam artist and Quatlooser Bill Conklin has this to say about Peymon: "Number Two in the Weasel Hall of Shame is Peymon Mottahedeh of Freedom Law School, which I have renamed Scams R Us. This man is especially dangerous because he is very charismatic when he speaks. But Peymon Mottahedeh is a WEASEL of the first order. Stay away from him. He ranks right up there -- er, I mean 'down there' -- with Judge Rizzo." Conklin goes so far as to suggest for people to file a complaint with the California Bar Association against Peymon and his bogus "Freedom Law School" and even provides the complaint form! See http://www.anti-irs.com/hall_of_shame.htm Notwithstanding this endorsement, Freedom Law School sells Conklin's book "Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns" online. Go figure.

    Of course, when we say that Peymon and Freedom Law School sell any of this stuff we really mean it -- cash, check or money orders only. Their order form humorously explains: " Send check or money order with the 'pay to' line left BLANK, or preferably, send CASH. Please see the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on page 26 of why we MUST use CASH to protect your's and our privacy." Page 26 of what? Must be the federal tax liens that Devvy claims to have the records of that Peymon is unable to discharge. Oh well -- we're only amazed that they don't suggest to any sucker who would buy their stuff that they leave the amount blank too because of the "U.S. Supreme Court ruling on page 26". Probably, Peymon just never thought of this.
    ________________________________________
    Thurston Bell says Freedom Law School are Scam Artists

    from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm
    Notice of Academic Deficiency
    5.12.2001
    There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.
    I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over the World Wide Web.
    When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.
    A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;
    B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.
    C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
    D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues.
    So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails.
    If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem.
    This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.
    Thurston P. Bell
    Founder
    PLEASE NOTE:
    NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:
    Al Adask;
    Al Beyer;
    Al Thompson;
    American Rights Litigators;
    American Tax Consultants;
    Barry Konicov;
    Big Al;
    *Bill Benson;
    *Bill "William" Conklin;
    *Bill Drexler;

    Bob Schulz;
    Brad Barnhill;
    Bruce Hatcher;
    Chad Prater;
    Christopher H. Hansen;
    Christopher M. Hansen;
    Dale Livingston;
    Dan Meador;
    Dave Bosset;
    Dave Champion;
    Dennis MacPhaeddon ;
    *Devvy Kidd;
    Dick Simkanin;
    Don Proctor;
    Ed Akehurst;
    Eddie Kahn;
    Ed "Eduardo" Rivera;
    Edmund Fitzsimmons;
    Erwin Rommel School of Law;
    Fairtax;
    Financial Fortress;
    Financial Prosperity;
    *Freedom Above Fortune; (Joe Banister)
    Freedom Hall;
    *Freedom Law School; (Peymon)
    *Free Enterprise Society; (Steve Hempfling)
    Gordon Phillips;
    Howard Freeman;
    Inform America;
    Institute of Global Prosperity;
    IRS Decoder;
    Inhabitant;
    *Irwin Schiff;
    *Jeff Dickstein;

    Jack Cohen;
    Jim Deal;
    John Feld;
    John Gliha;
    John Hecht;
    John B. Kotmair;
    *Joseph Banister;
    Joy Foundation;
    Justin Garriott;
    Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
    Lamar Hardy, Hawaii;
    *Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
    Law Research Registry;
    Les Hollingshead;
    Lynda Wahl;
    *Lynn Meridith;
    Marcia Doerr;
    Mel Stamper;
    Pat Patton;
    *Paul Andrew Mitchell;
    Paul Lienthall;
    PreferredServices;
    Richard Cornforth;
    Richard Standring;
    Right Way Law;
    Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
    Sean O'Hara;
    Solutions Group;
    Steve DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other alisases)
    Steven Swan;
    Steven Beresford;
    Supreme Law Firm;
    Tax Ax;
    Taxgate.com (NOT Tax-Gate.com);
    Tax Statement;
    The Informer;
    Tom Scambos;
    Tom Smith (Alleged Doctor);
    Treasury Tax Secrets;
    Virginia Cropsey a/k/a Little Red Hen
    Wallace Institute ( A Disgrace to William Wallace and Clan Wallace);
    Wayne C. Bentson
    *"We The People Foundation" (Lynne Meredith ?)
    Review Pending
    Paul Sulla, Attorney

    People who do not seem to understand have not seen as many people as Mr. Bell has seen, get hurt. They lose their property, jobs, paychecks, and / or families. They obviously do not have the discernment to understand how vitally important this issue is, and how we MUST stay on point or lose.
    There is no room for those who claim it is their 1st Amendment Right for supporting people who are espousing such res judicata arguments. The courts and the Kotmair case made it clear. Guilt by association is NOW supported by CASE LAW.

    I also knew these additional person's/groups not listed above.
    Your Heritage Protection Association - the first one I joined
    Otto Skinner
    William "Bill" Drexler
    Bill Benson & Red Beckman, I have their books

    The lesson I have learned through life is that "the government & courts are NOT your friend !"
     
    michael59 and Bigjon like this.
  16. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    9,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;
    B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic StabilizationProgram.
    C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.


    THIS ^, THIS ^ & THIS ^! Rule 12(b)(6) = A Flotation & Blending of Admiralty & Law Merchant.... This assures the Plaintiff will defeat any controversies brought before the Bar.... And those that make it past this point will be confronted with the declared emergency & emergency statutes of 1933 & 1934, one of which is the unconstitutional "Economic Stabilization Program"..... I.E. your not gonna win, they write the rules & rewrite the rules ad infinitum.
     
    Bigjon and TAEZZAR like this.
  17. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    I am in no way claiming to be in some level above anyone else...I do believe that it is in my best interest to try and educate as many people as possible, because you may need one of those people in a jury at some point.

    I have taken multiple things that I have learned from various places and blended them together over time, as it is a multitude of ways in which they entrap you.

    I think the biggest things are these below:

    1st: 'Endorsing Private Credit'
    I believe this is the biggest net that gets you.
    We have a system of private courts which uses private law because we use the private credit from a private corporation.
    I give credit to David Merrill for his research on this subject.

    2nd: 'Proper Record Keeping'
    Again, credit goes to David Merrill for his stress the point of.
    Understanding and knowing how to keep proper records is absolutely vital in protecting yourself from these vipers.
    As I posted in a earlier post, an Affidavit Denying Existence of Corporation" ("Specific Negative Averment") per Rule 9(a)


    3rd: Jurisdiction...Never argue anything else.
    This is another vital component to understand.
    The only thing you ever want to do is demand that they prove they have jurisdiction over you.
    Without that they have nothing they can do.
    As I posted in a few of the earlier posts, how you do it is important...I.E. ... Affidavit
    Remember that they must have either title over an object (i.e. you) or a VALID contract....make them produce it.


    The last thing you want to do is go into their courts and argue anything with them and I sure as hell would never go in thinking I could out smart the Judge...you just may end up spending some time in jail.



    --------------------------------------------

    Think of it this way,
    If MicroSoft came and threatened you would you submit to their threats or would you laugh in their face???
    And yes, I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but it really is the same...
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  18. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    Yes BB, I agree with what you are saying IF:

    If you are arguing a case in their courts,
    then you have already submitted to their jurisdiction
    and you lost the case before it ever started.

    The point is to force them into proving they have jurisdiction and a claim over you BEFORE it gets into court.
    That is done in Discovery before you stand under the charges.
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  19. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    9,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The problem with jurisdiction begins with "ALL RISE" as the judge enters the court room. Rising creates exclusive jurisdiction.

    Next is the pleading, pleading occurs prior to discovery... IOW jurisdiction is created before discovery commences. Now it MAY be a LIMITED jurisdiction serving over the administrative of the proceeding... I dont know, which seems likely as "subject matter" jurisdiction can be challenged at any time during the trial.
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  20. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Well I have to ask the jim if not he thinks there is not a corn of truth in every trud? Now not being mean here it is just a question that proposes a truth.

    It is a gleen of what works and what dont.

    spose i will go read the other responses.

    MY THINKING is, is that they don't have it right so why should I succumb. Hate to end a sentence with a "b" but I did. yeah question mark does not apply to the "b".
     
  21. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    It is a tuff hoe to roe when you are not on the water. great compilation and great insight. U guy are great.
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  22. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    14,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    To add to that:
    I find it ironic that we have a First Amendment, which guarantees us the right to freedom of speech, EXCEPT in a courtroom.
     
    BarnacleBob and michael59 like this.
  23. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    We do and it is "OBJECTION-POINT OF CLARITY..blaw-blaw-blaw IS!" Could say contention but the point is "OBJECTION."
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  24. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    dID YOU NOT SE(sorry) did you not see me write about the duii gal? Here in ore-e-gone if you do not speak then you are not heard.
     
  25. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    Yes it does.
    They commanded you do something and you obeyed....
    I have just sat there





    Yes it can...and that is the only thing you should be arguing about and it HAS to be done by AFFIDAVIT...

    Your Affidavit stands as truth until they can present evidence to prove it wrong....I.E. a contract or title of object in question. Also demanding that they answer by notarized affidavit in return means someone has to stick their neck in the noose and take responsibility for any trespass against your rights.
     
    BarnacleBob and TAEZZAR like this.
  26. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Which is why I am not getting a written opinion, the inhabitant of the court does not want to stick his head out. Well what follows is just a ruff draft subject to refinement, of which would most likely be a total re-write because my facts and argument is/are mixed together.

    Facts





    On April 25, 2017 defendant made a motion to dismiss and it was accepted by court to be ruled on. Defendant called court to find out as the disposition of that motion on May 2, 2017.

    As per phone call to court and court's denial of motion to dismiss with prejudice above contempt of court, the court was asked/told that it needed to make that denial in writing.

    This was agreed upon by both parties on May 2, 2017. The moving party as of this date May 16, 2017 still has not received that written opinion from the court. This party finds this delaying tactic a showing of bad faith of said court and of the inhabitant of that court; Justice of the Peace Wally Thompson. It is believed by this party that an effort to run out tort time that is currently running is the action being pursued by this court. As per Article 1 section 2 of the charter of Oregon aka Oregon Constitution ie. relevant factors in determining whether proceedings are criminal it is found that of the four listed elements 1)Type of Offense; 2)Prescribed Penalty; 3)Collateral Consequences; 4) Pretrial Practices. It cannot be found by this defendant any Collateral Consequences that contempt of court in this matter exist, there by making this matter civil in nature and not criminal. It is this mans comprehension that as such the inferior court known as Columbia County Justice Court has followed the wrong form in its endeavor to prosecute. There by making this titled motion in wrong form also.



    It is this man's contention that the plaintiff power of this inferior court has run its course and is not in existence as this court only has a three year run time before the statute tolled. Those times are 7-x-2008 for 04-C-1132; 6-1-2010 for 10-V-0584. With a DOI issued in 1-16-2015 being two years past the tolling of the statute it is problematic that the affidavit of truth or declaration of truth under penalty of perjury is in fact a false claim there by not only causing a tort but a kidnapping under color of law by this court and the Columbia County Sheriff by causing one Michael Keith family name Foutch to be involuntarily enslaved for 31 days without a trial of which he never waived.



    Conclusion



    If there can be any conclusions this man just does not know what they could be other than to state a claim of harm and injury due to the incompetence of this court to follow state law as its due diligence requires it to do to keep from such injury to those it would seek to apply its own brand of justice to. This man does not know what to call this mess but it needs to be extricated out of this court and previewed in a different venue. Which one that would be is unknowable to him as Municipal Courts seem to be free of the restrictions placed on STATE courts which have accountability and review.

    And: from what I have read I think this goes to the supreme court of Oregon but last correspondence with them they wrote that they only hear from the appeals court. They will most likely send me a letter like they did before telling me to get a lawyer and if I do that I am doomed, and don't I know it. I would sure hate to file this at the wrong court because it would be loss of filing fees, but I am seriously considering going down to Polk County Courthouse and getting it on with a harm and injury claim aka tort but I so want to arrest that inhabitant for kidnapping, so bad I can almost taste it.
     
  27. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    14,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    Do your homework !!!
    We all want you to prevail on this !!!!
     
    michael59 likes this.
  28. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,391
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Thing is, is it is a lot of home work.

    edit: I have to find book 611. Don't ask cuz I don't know but what I am looking for is in that book as I have seen several references to it.

    edit number two: Here is what I am in...er...law-law land (just sound it out); “Judge of any court” does not include municipal judge. State ex rel Kaino v. Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, 335 Or 633, 74 P3d 1080 (2003)

    yeah the freaks are given free range over this so called "peace and dignity"
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017

Share This Page