fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
EDITORIAL: Another email from Pablo Rodriguez
___________
From: Pablo Rodriguez
Subject: Re: Mr. Hendrickson is NOT the person in § 7343!
I am trying to get Mr. Hendrickson out of prison.
The first thing we have to do is show that the indictment was flawed from the beginning because Mr. Hendrickson was not fairly advised of all the elements that he was to defend against. Next, this is absolutely grounds for incompetent counsel because even he (she?) didn't bring this up in Mr. Hendrickson's defense. There were no jury instructions showing all the factual elements of § 7343 that were required to be met. Mr. Hendrickson was railroaded into prison without a just and fair hearing. He has grounds for a habeas corpus, which should be written immediately.
My points in the previous e-mails and discussions are:
1. There are factual elements of § 7343:
a. Individual;
b. Duty; and
c. Duty attached to a position within a corporation or connected with a corporation.
2. The DOJ never asserted any of these factual elements in their indictment
3. Mr. Hendrickson argued “includes and including” (7701(c)) which is a fatally flawed argument because the courts ruled, in the case of § 6671(:cool: and § 7343 that “officer or employee of a corporation or member of a partnership” really means any individual.
4. The courts disagreed with Mr. Hendrickson's statutory construction of “includes and including.” While very well written (his best effort to-date, in my opinion), he missed the other two factual elements present in “Person.”
5. Mr. Hendrickson never argued that as an individual, he did not have a duty attached to his position within a corporation or that he did not have duty connected with a corporation so as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
6. He didn't argue that merely being an officer or employee of a corporation is insufficient to establish duty and that not every officer or employee of a corporation is under a duty to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
7. The term “person” must be interpreted consistently across the statutes [and within the statutes, too].
8. The indictment is fatally flawed because it fails to give notice to Mr. Hendrickson all the factual elements of which he is being charged because it fails to put the defendants on notice as to the charges they were to defend against. Thus, the indictment was defective and on that basis,
must be dismissed.
What is absolutely key here is that even though the court's have ruled about “includes and including” seeming to be entirely expansive without limit, they never once mention the other factual elements required to be the “person” in cases involving individuals apart from a corporation. If Mr. Hendrickson will let the courts “have their way” that “includes and including” means any individual, the courts and the DOJ are still bound to prove the other two factual elements of “person,” which they never did nor did they even assert. While the DOJ and the courts ruled that Mr. Hendrickson was an individual (factual element 1 of 3), they never got to the other two elements.
The beauty of what I'm proposing is that even if the courts have ruled that “includes and including” in the context of § 7343 means an individual, we can use that to our advantage. That's why I proposed re-writing the “person” definitions found in 6671(:cool: and 7343 to clarify how the courts have ruled:
The term “person” is an individual who has a duty attached to his position within a corporation or has a duty connected with a corporation such that he is responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Putting these together, one can only conclude that Mr. Hendrickson is not the “person” in § 7343. Further, a writ of habeas corpus is entirely appropriate in this circumstance. Not only that, others who have been unjustly accused of tax crimes most likely need to have writs of habeas corpus written for them, too.
Would you be willing to form a virtual team to investigate the indictments of others and see if the indictments fail to mention the factual elements of “person” in § 7343? Would you be willing to help write writs of habeas corpus to free them, too?
A Side Note
While I absolutely disagree with Mr. Hendrickson's administrative remedy (using Forms 4852), this is a mild disagreement which an open healthy debate can put to rest. I am certainly open to hearing that I'm wrong, which is one of the reasons I published my original e-mail to Bob Hurt and which was posted on Bob Hurt's Lawmen Google group. I want to encourage an honest, open, fair “hearing” of what I've uncovered to find the fatal flaws or fine-tune the argument and make it even better. Unfortunately, many have closed their eyes or ears to our work (don't listen to the message because of who the messenger is) in understanding the court's decisions (as bad as they are) and use that as a weapon to beat them over the head with.
Frivolous Penalties
By the way, if one is not a “person” within the meaning of § 6671(:cool:, then he cannot be assessed a frivolous tax submission penalty! Has anyone considered that?
But being put into prison, having his rights stripped without due process, justice, or even the most minimum modicum of fairness is an egregious violation of all that makes us human.
Regards,
Pablo Rodriguez
-
EDITORIAL: Another Springer update from jail distributed via email. We didn't write this.
____________
Hi there,
I want to first apologize for letting Dad's updates stack up on me. I know many of you are very interested in his cases, as well as his insight regarding the direction of our country as it relates to the tax code. I'll be sending out a few messages back-to-back to get you up to speed on what's happening. Some exciting developments seem to indicate the proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel” (both for Lindsey personally, as well as our broken system).
An update from January:
If any of you wish for a copy of the modified brief for my criminal appeal please send response email and i will get you a copy of link.
Recently I have watched as the United States scrambles behind the scenes to merge the plan of national health care with the Internal Revenue's current collection structure which is either unpublished or unknown in my opinion. I realize that most fail to grasp the significance of Congress authorizing the Secretary to “canvas” Internal Revenue Districts and when no such districts exist what authority then exists for canvassing?
For two centuries the way power flows into a United States District Court is by Statute of Congress. In the case of “internal revenue” for instance, the District Court is authorized at Title 26, Sec. 7402 to “enforce” internal revenue laws when the Secretary makes proper authorization to someone and the Attorney General also authorizes at Title 26, Secs. 7401 and 7403.
To understand how the Secretary does so much when he is only one person is to follow the definition of “Secretary” which means “or his delegate.” See Title 26, Sec. 7701(a)(11) and (12). The Secretary is authorized by Title 26, Sec. 7805 to issue proper regulations for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. All of Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) are regulations by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Secretary defined “Secretary” at Title 26, CFR Sec. 301.7701-9 which includes “District Director” and then defined “District Director” exclusively at Title 26 CFR Sec. 301.7701-10. When the Secretary issues a “regulation” which directs the District Director to act a certain way, on his behalf, this is called a delegation. There are re-delegations and delegation orders but if the Secretary delegates in a specific regulation a specific function, to District Director, the District Director becomes the delegate and when he acts he acts as if he was the Secretary of the Treasury enforcing what he was delegated to enforce.
The Secretary does not delegate the creation of Internal Revenue Districts. He is only authorized to canvas them at Title 26, Sec. 7601. Congress directed the President to create Internal Revenue Districts at Title 26, Sec. 7621(a). These are the current laws of the United States in 2011. Yet, the President has never established any Internal Revenue Districts and his delegation to the Secretary of the Treasury by Executive Order 10574 in 1954 is the only act he ever took. The Secretary by regulation created Internal Revenue Districts and District Director Offices at Title 26, CFR Sec. 301.7514-1. The Secretary recorded the President's delegation at Title 26, CFR Sec. 301.7621-1.
Congress did direct the Commissioner to reorganize the Collection (Title 26, Sec. 6301) and Assessment (Title 26, Sec. 6201) functions which as of 1998 was the district structure at Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 Sec. 1001(a) (1998), but what happened was someone decided to abolish all the Internal Revenue Districts and District Director Offices in 1999 and did so without authority and did not tell Congress.
So, for 12 years, the Secretary of the Treasury has had no districts to canvas, and no offices to exercise his power through according to law. Title 4, Sec. 72 directs that all offices attached to the seat of the Government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, unless expressly provided by law. The office of Secretary of the Treasury is created at Title 31, Sec. 301 in the District of Columbia in the Department of the Treasury.
For 12 years, all Title 26 Statutes and Regulations have referred to Internal Revenue District and District Director repeatedly by both Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury, without change, while no such place lawfully existed.
Now apply that tid bit to enforcement of the National Health Care plan. The plan directs more revenuers be hired to collection and enforce the health care plan. How are the to do it? Through a district structure that does not exist? Where everyone needs to start is in the phrase “The Secretary shall……” This is the same terms in the Tax Law which led to delegates of the Secretary, which led to District Directors, which led to no District Directors while enforcement appears without compliance with Title 26, and Code of Federal Regulations.
What person is going to file a lawsuit in the fourth week of chemo with prognosis of 6 months of less to live in Federal Court and get relief before the die? Oh, I know, trust the licensed attorneys for both the private sector and the Government. We are invaded with licences attorneys at ever level of Government and approval is at 13% for Congress, the President is less than 50% and I dare someone to take a poll on the Federal District Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court clearly has the worst job due to only taking 100 cases per year but what is the recourse when a inferior Court Judge decides not to go by Statutes that state “Secretary shall” or specific regulations that require a delegate to take some action when all they have to do is abolish that position and go on like business as usual.
I agree it is time to change the Tax System the United States utilizes to exact from the 50 States. I agree it is time to make it simple that if they cannot say it in 14000 words (the amount of words you get to file in an appeal of a District Court order claimed to be erroneous or a usurpation of power to an appellate court)(yep, lawyers did that) they havn't said it.
What Congress has done in the past is put its usurpation of the role of limited government challenges up against the judicial branch and licensed attorneys who have shown they can destroy a system singlehandedly by simply ignoring the words of the written law, regulations, and history of decisions, and just if they decide they do not like your politics, or you or your family,turn their heads away from the law and leave you to dare to challenge their authority on appeal (14,000 or less).
I would say many are beginning to see the light shining through the liberty bell but not in view of liberty or death. It is health care or death earlier. If you do not think soon the life or death decisions will be made differently based upon what mood someone is in or what current inventory is then think again. Health care is a life long process which in a general basis rejects things like smoking, drugs, alcohol, physical abuse and prolonged exposure to certain things as examples.
The reason why Government sought to take over health care was to buy some time on the system's failure. The system failed and that fact must be accepted if any meaingful corrections will ever be made. National anything is unhealthy in many respects. It makes the State serve the needs of the United States when the United States was created to serve the national needs of the States united.
Please learn about your 70,000 page of Treasury Regualtions and 10,000 pages of Tax Statutes as what is known as the tax “law” and tell your Congressman if he does not or cannot stop tax law from growing how is anyone able to understand the health care law and its application. The President is considering scrapping the tax code and each of us should thank him for considering that. I know he has few choices because of the abolishing of Internal Revenue Districts and District Director offices among the several States. Please do not stop there. Hold your Congressman and Senators to the same agenda. It is time to fix the wreck and start over.
Health care should be about preserving life and not promoting death. The Tax Code was to be about raising revenue but that obviously did not work. 14 Trillion and counting proves the Tax Code is used to invade the 50 States control by Congress and not to pay the debts of the United States. The only thing that pays the debts of the United States was its own debt which most of the world has figured out by now.
There are real answers out there for those who are willing to admit the mistakes of the past that led us down this god forsaken road. Once the mistakes are known then that information will help keep them from being repeated in the future.
The issue of Internal Revenue Districts being abolished is being raised all over the nation and soon some judge somewhere will begin to see ignoring the law leads to tyranny of which he swore to protect the people from.
Keep your eyes on the Tax Code debate and Health Care “Secretary Shall” as these are the center of it all.
Lindsey Springer 1.15.11
As always, Dad can receive money through PayPal at gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com.
We're again receiving support at Lindsey's old mailing address:
Landon Springer
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
(Please be sure to make any checks or money orders out to me, as I won't be able to cash anything written to Lindsey directly.)
Thank you once again for taking the time to read this and consider supporting us. I'll be sending out a few more updates this week. After that, I'll try to send out updates at the beginning of each week.
Thanks and God bless,
Landon Springer
-
JB,
Thanks for the info. Please keep us posted on the progress of your case. This ought to be interesting.
-
Juliusbragg,
Thanks for that helpful information. We alwyas knew that word games were at the heart of the property tax fraud like it is in so many other areas. Now you have proven the heart of the fraud.
Your analysis leaves one important presumption unexplained. You imply that recording the property sale is an avoidable and therefore “voluntary” and consensual activity. In practice, it is not, and hence cannot and should not be regarded as consent to convert private property to public property. Here is why:
1. The Declaration of Independence says our rights are UNalienable, which means that they cannot lawfully be converted into public rights, even WITH our consent. Hence, the only place such a conversion could lawfully occur is where rights don't exist to begin with, which is federal territory not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
2. If you try to deviate from the standard deed format for recording of property transfers, the county recorders are trained NOT to accept ANY kind of filing and hence, have implemented the equivalent of a public policy to interfere with PRIVATE contracts in violation of the state constitution. For instance, if you don't follow the wording exactly and associate the property with the corporate “this state” or call it “real property”, they will say they can't accept the filing. Even if you try to record it NOT as a real property sale but simply a private contract, they won't do it. Hence, they are FORCING you to become a “taxpayer” for property taxes, which is organized extortion.
3. If you don't follow the standard deed format and record the sale per state statutes:
3.1 Most title companies will not insure the sale or transfer, thus alienating and scaring away buyers of the property.
3.2 Banks loaning you the money will back out of the loan.
Hence, the process is not voluntary at all because other parties coerce you into recording it and mischaracterize it as PUBLIC property called “real property”. All these parties usually do so because they have professional licenses as realtors that they don't want to lose or risk losing by virtue of not sharing the plunder with the corrupt state government. The only way around this problem is you aren't smart enough to redefine the words on the deed transfer is:
1. To buy the property cash and not borrow.
2. To not involve a title company.
3. To UNRECORD the property from the county roles entirely. In other words, you record the sale of the property but say it has been removed from “this state” and don't identify the new owner.
The key is not the words used in the deed of sale for the property that gets recorded but rather:
1. The definition of the words.
2. The association of the words used with specific state statutes. This association is the “purposeful availment” that produces the implied waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be taxed.
3. The PRESUMPTIONS of the parties reading the document that the words used in the recorded deed are the same as those used in the statutes and the state constitution.
All of the above problems above can be completely circumvented by doing the following:
1. Defining all terms to EXCLUDE any and all statutory terms.
2. Defining the terms “real property” and “this state” as NOT being anything found in state law but rather PRIVATE property not subject to property taxation which is located outside “this state”.
3. Defining “in this state” in state codes as meaning it is contractually connected with a franchise with the consent of the owner, and saying that it is not the intention of either party to do this.
Many states try to discourage the above tactics by insisting that properties that have been removed from the property tax rolls, upon sale and recording to a new party who DOES pay property tax, must retroactively pay REAL property tax for all prior years before they be can be recorded. This is a way of effectively punishing all those who want their PRIVATE property to retain its status as PRIVATE. Hence, they are effecting the OPPOSITE of protection of private rights: They are PUNISHING those with private rights rather than protecting them. Hence, they are accomplishing the opposite purpose for which government was instituted to begin with, which is the protection of PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property.
-
Here's another similar and related story:
Blockbuster files for bankruptcy, 24Feb2011
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/blockbuster-netflix-hulu,news-10221.html
No one wants to rent videos anymore. Part of the reason may also have to do with the CRAP that Hollywood is making. I wouldn't rent anything they make anymore.
_________________
Blockbuster Auctions Itself Off; Any Takers?
11:10 AM – February 24, 2011 – By Tuan Mai –
Source : Cnet
After filing for bankruptcy, Blockbuster will now be auctioning its operation off to the highest bidder.
On Monday, Blockbuster announced that it will be auctioning off its operation to the highest bidder, after the management was offered $290 million for its international and U.S. subsidies. Without much hesitation the company has agreed to an arrangement in which the $290 million will be used as the minimum amount the company will accept for its sale.
After many years of successfully providing movies to their loyal customers, Blockbuster has been dying a slow and painful death at the hands of Netflix and similar, cheaper movie renting alternatives. In 2009, Blockbuster closed nearly 1,000 stores due to profit losses which didn't do much for the company's stock value. After the company's stock was taken off of the New York Stock Exchange due to its low value, the company was forced into a corner and filed for bankruptcy.
Now in the middle of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company must first obtain authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in order to hold an auction for its sale. Despite the grim future of Blockbuster, the company's CEO Jim Keyes is confident that the buyer of Blockbuster will have made a great investment.
“The purchaser will be able to take full advantage of Blockbuster's many strengths, which include an internationally recognized brand name, an exceptional library of more than 125,000 titles, millions of loyal customers, and a multi-channel content distribution platform,” Keyes explained. “Because of its ability to deliver physical content (through DVDs) and digital content (through streaming), Blockbuster can offer customers the unique ability to access any movie, any time.”
Blockbuster is expected to be sold by April 20 at the latest and any binding offers made must be able to close within 30 days of approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. While the auction and sale continues, the company's U.S. and international stores and operations will still be in business.
Does anybody here still use Blockbuster? Let us know in the comments below.
-
The Man Who Won a Judgment against Wells Fargo
THROUGH A QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4547542/man-takes-on-bank—and-wins/?playlist_id=86856
________________
A Philadelphia homeowner started foreclosure proceedings on a Wells Fargo mortgage office after winning a rather strange legal judgement against the bank.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rodgers discovered the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which requires mortgage companies to acknowledge written requests within 20 business days or face penalties. He took Wells Fargo to court, winning a default judgement because the bank didn't show up in court.
Passed in 1974 to protect borrowers, RESPA stipulates a standard complain letter that can be sent to lenders. (For more information on RESPA, check out the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's website here.)
Rodgers won a $1,173 judgment against the bank, and when they still failed to reply to his letters, he started foreclosure proceedings.
The contents of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's offices at 1341 North Delaware Avenue are reportedly still scheduled for a March 4 sherif's sale.
The homeowner placed a sheriffs levy against Well's Fargo's local mortgage office, to cover the $1,173 judgment, plus tax. The bank paid up in January, but still had not responded to his letters, so he started a foreclosure sale on the Wells Fargo office.
_______________________
1. RESPA Letter requires banks to respond within 20 days.
2. If not, you have damages.
3. Seek a court judgment,
4. Place a lien on their bank assets.
5. Have a sheriff sale.
______________________
This letter is a “qualified written request” under the Federal Servicer Act, which is a part of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605(e). This request is made on the above referenced account. Specifically, I am requesting the following information:
1. A complete and itemized statement of the loan history from the date of the loan to the date of this letter including, but not limited to, all receipts by way of payment or otherwise and all charges to the loan in whatever form. This history should include the date of each and every debit and credit to any account related to this loan, the nature and purpose of each such debit and credit, and the name and address of the payee of any type of disbursement related to this account.
2. A complete and itemized statement of all advances or charges against this loan for any purpose that are not reflected on the loan history transaction statement provided in answer to question #1.
3. A complete and itemized statement of the escrow account of the loan, if any, from the date of the loan to the date of this letter, including, but not limited to, any receipts or disbursements with respect to real estate property taxes, fire or hazard insurance, flood insurance, mortgage insurance, credit insurance, or any other insurance product.
4. Have you purchased and charged to the account any Vendor’s Single Interest Insurance?
5. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any forced-placed insurance and expenses related thereto, related in any way to this loan.
6. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any suspense account entries and/or any corporate advance entries related in any way to this loan.
7. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any property inspection fees, property preservation fees, broker opinion fees, appraisal fees, bankruptcy monitoring fees, or other similar fees or expenses related in any way to this loan.
8. Identify the provision under the Deed of Trust and/or note that authorizes charging each and every such fee against the loan.
9. Please attach copies of all property inspection reports and appraisals.
10. A complete and itemized statement of any and all post-petition arrears including each month in which the default occurred, and the amount of each monthly default.
11. A complete and itemized statement of any late charges to this loan from the date of this loan to the date of this letter.
12. The amount, if applicable, of any “satisfaction fees.”
13. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any fees incurred to modify, extend, or amend the loan or to defer any payment due under the terms of the loan.
14. The current amount needed to pay-off the loan in full.
15. A full and complete comprehensible definitional dictionary of all transaction codes and other similar terms used in the statements requested above.
16. A complete and itemized statement of any funds deposited in any post-petition suspension account(s) or corporate advance account(s), including, but not limited to, the balance in any such account or accounts and the nature, source and date of any and all funds deposited in such account or accounts.
17. A complete and itemized statement from the date of this loan to the date of this letter of the amount, payment date, purpose and recipient of all foreclosure expenses, NSF check charges, legal fees, attorney fees, professional fees and other expenses and costs that have been charged against or assessed to this mortgage.
18. A complete and itemized statement of the amount, payment date, purpose and recipient of all fees for the preparation and filing of the original proof of claim, any amended proofs of claim, or any supplemental proofs of claim related to this mortgage.
19. The full name, address and phone number of the current holder of this debt including the name, address and phone number of any trustee or other fiduciary. This request is being made pursuant to Section 1641(f)(2) of the Truth In Lending Act, which requires the servicer to identify the holder of the debt.
20. The name, address and phone number of any master servicers, servicers, sub-servicers, contingency servicers, back-up servicers or special servicers for the underlying mortgage debt.
21. A copy of any mortgage Pooling and Servicing Agreement and all Disclosure Statements provided to any Investors with respect to any mortgage-backed security trust or other special purpose vehicle related to the said Agreement and any and all Amendments and Supplements thereto.
22. If a copy of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been filed with the SEC, provide a copy of SEC Form 8k and the Prospectus Supplement, SEC Form 424b5.
23. The name, address and phone number of any Trustee under any pooling or servicing agreement related to this loan.
24. A copy of the Prospectus offered to investors in the trust.
25. Copies of all servicing, master servicing, sub-servicing, contingency servicing, special servicing, or back-up servicing agreements with respect to this account.
26. All written loss-mitigation rules and work-out procedures related to any defaults regarding this loan and similar loans.
27. The procedural manual used with respect to the servicing or sub-servicing of this loan.
28. A summary of all fixed or standard legal fees approved for any form of legal services rendered in connection with this account.
29. Is this loan subject to any Electronic Tracking Agreement? If the answer is yes, then state the full name and address of the Electronic Agent and the full name and address of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.
30. Is the servicing of this loan provided pursuant to any type of mortgage electronic registration system? If the answer is yes, then attach a copy of the mortgage electronic registration system procedures manual.
31. A copy of the LSAMS Transaction History Report for the mortgage loan account, with a detailed description of all fee codes.
32. Is this a MERS Designated Mortgage Loan? If the answer is yes, then identify the electronic agent and the type of mortgage electronic system used by the agent.
33. Is this mortgage part of a Mortgage Warehouse Loan? If so, then state the full name and address of the Lender and attach a copy of the Warehouse Loan Agreement.
34. Upon any default or notice of default, state whether or not the Mortgage Warehouse Lender has the right to override any servicers or sub-servicers and provide instructions directly to the Electronic Agent? If the answer is yes, then specifically identify the legal basis for such authority.
35. Is this mortgage part of a Whole Loan Sale Agreement? If the answer is yes, then state the name and address of the Purchaser, the Custodian, the Trustee, the Electronic Agent and any Servicer or Sub-Servicers.
You should be advised that you must acknowledge receipt of this qualified written request within 20 business days, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(e)(1)(A) and Reg. X Section 3500.21(e)(1).
You should also be advised that I will seek the recovery of damages, costs, and reasonable legal fees for each failure to comply with the questions and requests herein. I also reserve the right to seek statutory damages for each violation of any part of Section 2605 of Title 12 of the United States Code.
*Also note that mortgage servicers are required to fully answer all these questions within 60 days from the date they receive this letter in addition to acknowleding receipt of your request in the first 20 days. During that time they are forbidden to report late-pays to the bureaus as well.
-
blue,
Some tactics come to mind that I would use in the above situation:
1. First of all, if I was driving regularly in a vehicle owned by someone else, I would ensure that I had a signed permission slip authorizing me to use the vehicle. That permission slip would use abbreviations for my first, or last, or both names. That way, they don't know my full name. That way, I could idenfity myself as the human being but not “person” with the initials on it who:
1.1 Had permission to use the vehicle.
1.2 Could not be accused or suspected of using a stolen vehicle.
1.3 Was not fully identified so I couldn't be searched or entered into any government computer.
This would also defeat their insistance that your provide a name. Most of the trouble you had could therefore have been avoided.
2. Before pulling over, I would leave the roadway onto private property. The vehicle code attaches to public property, which is the public road. When the officer walked up, I would ask him what right he has to enforce the vehicle code on PRIVATE property. He's a trespasser on private property, and therefore he has unclean hands and can't issue the ticket.
3. When the police officer pulled up, I would not show ID but I would identify myself with the same initials as are on the permission slip to use the vehicle.
4. If the officer insisted on ID, I would:
4.1 Say to him that the DMV refused to issue ID to nonresidents who are not statutory “drivers” such as myself.
4.2 Say that since I was unable to obtain nonresident nonprivileged ID, then I do not have anything to show him.
4.3 Tell him that if he would ORDER the DMV to issue nonresident “nondriver” ID and NOT enter my information in any computer or share it with anyone and thereby violate my right of privacy, I would be happy to go down immediately to the DVM to ensure that I have what he needs.
5. If the officer insisted on my full name instead of initials:
5.1 I would ask him if he intended to use it for a commercial purpose that might benefit anyone other than me, such as to issue a fine or citation.
5.2 If he said yes, I would say that I must not have a name, because having anything as property implies the right to EXCLUDE all others from using or benefitting from it.
5.3 I would hand him a piece of paper in which he would have to agree NOT to use the name in connection with any franchise, commercial benefit, or 'privilege” and if he did, he agreed to be the liable party for whatever commerce was attached to it.
5.4 If he wouldn't sign the agreement, I would say that I must not OWN and therefore “have” a “name” because I can't control who uses and benefits from it.
6. I would then say that the DMV also refused to issue me a nonresident nondriver license for PRIVATE and not commercial use. I would say that I am happy to undergo a driver test and even driver certification, but not a license because I can't lawfully be a public officer in the government as a licensee.
7. If he said that EVERYONE is required to give their name, I would respond with: The IRS doesn't use their real name and never signs anything under penalty of perjury. The Constitution says all “persons” are equal, which means I must be able to do that too. Are you suggesting that they AREN'T equal? And if You can charge me a fee for using YOUR roadways, don't I have a right to charge YOU for using my personal time and any damages you cause by harrassing me? Isn't my time and my vehicle MY property that I can license and control you in the use of? See:
Notice of Pseudonym Use, Form #04.206
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/NotOfPseudonym.pdf
8. If they said I was crazy, I would say they are crazy for insisting that I can “have” or own something that I don't control exclusively as property, such as a name. Since they won't let me control OTHER people's commercial use of it, then I can't have a REAL name as REAL property.
9. I would say that I am not engaged in the act of “driving”, because not using the public roadways for a commercial use or any kind of business.
10. If the officer asked me where I was headed, I would say “out of state”, because the U.S Supreme Court has reeatedly held that police officers cannot interfere with interstate travel. We know that the “state” they are enforcing for is a private corporation, and that is a state I ALWAYS want to be leaving anyway.
If you need help on the above subjects, I recommend:
Defending Your Right to Travel, Form #06.010
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/DefYourRightToTravel/DefYourRightToTravel.htm
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
I'm not going to hold your hand on this one beyond this point. You are going to have to make some deposits and hang around here a few years before you are entitled to demand our services here. Unto he who much is given, much is expected.
-
Neo,
Fabulous work once, again. Very good suggestion. I'll let the author know about that.
The Resignation of Compelled SS Trustee Document DOES correct your citizenship status in the cover letter PRIOR to terminating the account. What you are suggesting would only be useful to those who do NOT terminate participation completely as required by the materials on this site.
Consequently, your suggestion would not be useful to documents existing on this website.
-
EDITORIAL: Here is a subsequent update by the same user, whose handle is “blue”.
_________
Hello:
The following happened all because of not having ID, not giving information, and claiming my rights based on the Constitution. I have continued reading your materials, and am planning to make oral statements in Superior Court, in my own lawful capacity with no representation in a special appearance. I read somewhere that going to court grants jurisdiction, but since I was in custody and brought to Court, I think it would be wiser to go to court, and state orally into the record a challenge of jurisdiction as not a State resident.
Originally, it was for unlicensed driver, but it has now become a case of competency. I have been brought before 2 different criminal courts with 2 different judges on the Superior Court level. I have been brought to Court about 7 times while in jail between the different courts. In the first criminal court, it ended with the Judge refusing my speaking in my own capacity without representation (denied Faretta), and his appointing the public defender to speak for me to make an appeal, (since I appealed his decisions). The judge had sent a court ordered psychologist to interview me while in custody. Many of the questions the psychologist asked had to do with court procedure. The psychologist said that if someone was unwilling to cooperate with the public defender, or did not know court procedure, this could also be considered incompetent to stand trial. The judge read the psychologist's report and ruled that I was not competent to stand trial. Because I did not give a “name”, they had suspended criminal proceedings, and put the case in DOUBT for mental competency, and now the judge has ruled “incompetent to stand trial.” I am unclear whether this is a ruling that applies only to this case, or will stand in other future contacts/arrests with the law. This judge did not set any more dates for court appearances in his court, so it appears that that is his final ruling — that I am incompetent to stand trial. I am looking for dismissal/discharging for lack of jurisdiction, not mental incompentency.
The next upcoming criminal court date is with the second judge, who had previously released me from detention in jail, after I had appealed his decision to stay me in jail in his court. He released me to continue court appearances out of jail. The same public defender from the first criminal court will be there, and will provide a copy of the psychologist's report at that time. I had been jailed for almost 50 days. This same public defender had said previously, they would give me bail to get out of jail, if I gave them a “name.” When I did not do that, in the next court appearance, the public defender said, they would dismiss the charges if I gave them a “name.” When I did not do that, the district attorney finally said they had “identified me.” The district attorney said that I could come to the next court date “if you want to.” I had been jailed for almost 50 days. I gave them no information, and did not sign anything, including any promises to appear in court. I am unclear if jurisdiction is challenged, which court can do that, and if they can redress false arrest and imprisonment for lack of jurisdiction.
Because of my stance in not providing information based on the Fifth Amendment, particularly a “name”, I was subjected to psychiatric evaluation while in custody. I also went on a hunger strike to protest my rights being violated with extended detention without trial. They put me under psychiatric evaluation, and when I contested under habeus corpus in another Superior Court, the judge upheld the psychiatic hold, because of the jail psychologist's report. I had refused all psychiatric evaluations and refused interviews. One thing led to another, and shortly, I was placed on involuntary psychiatric medications, where if I refused, I would be given medications by force through injections. They noticed me with a petition for temporary conservatorship/guardianship to Superior Court, placing me under an employee of the Court, who would make decisions for me regarding my estate, person, and medications for being “gravely disabled.” This petition was under the identity of the person with a Social Security number and a date of birth. They went through the psychiatric evaluation to use coercion so that I would provide information. There is an upcoming court date regarding this for permanent conservatorship/guardianship under the “name” with Social Security number and date of birth, even though I did not sign anything promising to appear.
The Sheriff said he had to identify me, and after many weeks, brought me back down to be re-fingerprinted with the “name” they had traced. I told them I did not consent to what ever “name” they called me. He fingerprinted me, again, anyway. They said I would have an alias as the “name”, and called me this “name” in psychiatic evaluation, but I remained JANE DOE in court.
On release from jail, I was sent to involuntary psychiatric 72 hour observation in an emergency room, under the “name,” where I was forced to take medications because of losing the administrative hearing in jail for capacity to decide on taking medications. The public defender had said he would arrange an appeal for capacity to decide, and for the temporary conservatorship. The appeal date came and went while in jail, and never happened. While in the 72 hour observation, they said I was there for refusing to be the “name” they had traced. I was interviewed by several different psychiatrists who said I had to provide them with in-depth information about my private life, how I support myself, my history, and had to provide collateral contact information of people they could call, or I would not be released, even for months. They were going to admit me to a psychiatric hospital. I was told to explain the Constitutional rights. I told them that since they were functioning under State regulations, I had rights I could stand on. They said it was my choice, to talk or to be detained involuntarily for months. They said, if I did not give them any outside person's contact information, under their State Welfare Check, they could not release me back on to the streets. Finally, I gave them permission to speak with a relative who had traced where they had put me after release from jail, and wanted to speak with the psychiatrist. On release from psychiatric emergency room, I had to sign under the “name” that I was discharged to myself, and accepted the converted check for the cash money I had at the time or arrest, issued to the “name” on the check. They gave a prescription for medications. When I refused medication, they said, it was a part of the agreement to be discharged that I take the medications, and to sign the paperwork. I signed, but it was under duress.
The car was impounded for 30 days, and the cost to release it was over $2,000.
Posting the case in the forums did not give any helpful input. I would like helpful input. From the above, I have three different court tracks, two criminal, one probate, under one case number. At every court date, I challenged jurisdiction. I am also looking to see, aside from dismissing the case/guardianship/charges for lack of jurisdiction, to see whether a ruling can be used to defend my future right to travel, and for redress of violation of rights. I am looking to see how to have them give the burden of proof for residency or admit I am not required to have a Driver's License, how I can defend my right to travel after all this, or have an identity hearing to prove my case. I want to expunge this case. Originally, when I was arrested, I told the Sheriff I was not required to have a Driver's License. He asked, do you have proof?
-
See:
Legal Remedies that Protect Private Rights, Form #12.019 (OFFSITE LINKS)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
We didn't write the above so we can't directly answer questions about it. But it is pretty complete.
As the above indicates:
1. Papers are filed as Petitions and not motions. Motions are only intended for judges who have authority. Judges proceeding under the common law have no authority and none should be recognized.
2. The common law is invoked. Proceedings under the common law proceed INDEPENDENTLY of the judge or magistrate and CANNOT involve him or her.
Quote:A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227. 229: EX parte Gladhill, 8 Metc . Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. Courts may be at the same time of record for some purposes and not of record for others. Lester v. Redmond, 6 Hill, N.Y., 590; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Melc., Mass., 168.[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 425-426]
3. The pleadings define YOU and the JURY to be both “Court” to be the “Sovereign”. The U.S. Supreme Court says THE PEOPLE are the sovereign and no one in the government is sovereign. Hence, YOU and the Jury are the “court” and the judge is an administrator for the Sovereign who has no power unless you give it to him by quoting franchise statutes available only to franchisees called “taxpayers”, “drivers”, “spouses”, Statutory “U.S. citizen”, etc.
Quote:“It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges…” at 471.“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.” at 472.
[Justice Wilson]
[Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472) (1794)]
4. If one started out as a defendant or respondent, they file a cross-complaint to become the Plaintiff. The cross-complaint is against the government judge and public pretender for violation of rights. The cross complaint also invokes a franchise agreement that imposes obligations on any one who injures the exercise of your rights. An example of such an agreement is:
Sovereignty Franchise Agreement, Form #06.027
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SovereigntyFranchise.pdf
5. You issue with the cross complaint as Plaintiff and Pro Tem Judge under the common law an order to show cause demanding that they prove on the record:
5.1 That they have any jurisdiction over a private party such as yourself.
5.2 That you waived sovereign immunity and agreed to be sued in writing. That's the same requirement they place on you when you want to sue the de facto “government” and under the concept of equal protection, all “persons” are equal, and hence yo uhave the same right as them.
5.3 If they can't produce consent in writing in the form that you and not they prescribe, then the only choice is to dismiss the case. If they won't respond, issue your own order as the Plaintiff, since the court is vacant. If they want to argue with you, tell them that you will debate it ONLY with the jury and that it is a criminal conflict of interest for the judge to rule on the matter. The reason is because the courts have repeatedly held that no man can be a judge in their own case and both the government prosecutor and the judge work for the same employer and are judging a case that benefitis or involves the government.
ONLY the jury, who are disinterested third parties can rule on ANYTHING without committing a crime.
Quote:The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.[Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798)]
Look at the pamphlet pointed to above. We won't answer further questions. We just want to get you started in the right direction. You are going to have to spend a LOT more time around here and help others before you are entitled to receive any further help. You are a newbee and you can only deserve what you are willing to FIRST give. The best way to learn any subject is to teach it to someone else and to help others before you need to help yourself.
-
pgb,
Thanks, but already mentioned in:
1. No treason
http://famguardian.o…r/NoTreason.htm
2. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037, Section 3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Great IRS Hoax, Section 4.4
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
-
1. The information is entered automatically into the IRMF: Information Return Master File.
2. A year goes by and the a TDI (Taxpayer Delinquency Inquiry) inquiry letter is sent out asking the person who is the subject of the return to file a return.
3. If there is no rebuttal by the recipient of the Taxpayer Delinquency Inquiry notice, the Automated Substituted For Return Program triggers an examination or audit. Sometimes it the examination is done without inviting the taxpayer in for an audit first, in the case of LTR 531DO. This is illegal, because an audit is mandated by regs.
4. If an audit is done, the “taxpayer” is called in on an administrative summons, and if they don't object properly, a Substitute For Return (SFR) is done by the examiner.
5. After the Illegal SFR is done, a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) is mailed to the taxpayer. Then the clock starts.
6. After 90 days for receipt in the USA, the “taxpayer” must either pay the amount due or petition the U.S. Tax Court. If the tax court is not petitioned, the IRS does an ILLEGAL assessment. See:
http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX05.050.pdf
7. After the ILLEGAL assessment, a Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearing is scheduled. You are supposed to meet the IRS agent and explain why their collection is illegal and demand that the false informatio nreturn is fixed. However, they seldom allow an in-person meeting and usually do it by phone to avoid being served with legal papers at the meeting or being identified who they are, because they use a FALSE name.
8. Then the liens and levies begin.
If you want to know more, all this is described in excruciating detail in the Inernal Revenue Manual, but the IRS NEVER follows their own procedures even though by law they have to:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/index.html
The correspondence effecting each step is found at:
http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/Federal/FedLetterAndNoticeIndex.htm
From here on out, read the manual yourself and answer your own questions. We aren't your uncompensated research assistant.
-
Here is the comment on this article from one of our readers:
Quote:Whenever I have done this the judge gets up and leaves the room because he knows statute does not apply to a people and an unlicensed representative cannot represent a people or an AVATAR person in a commercial ceremonial chamber of “this state.” There is no win. Only a stoppage of process until one day 10 or 15 years in the future when the AVATAR pops up with assets and similar named people needing the administration of this state to do something for the people or the AVATAR, or allow the AVATAR to do something, without which payment of the assessment made 15 years prior, the needed thing will not happen. Only psycho steroid thugs with guns enforcing for the de factos spawn of satan of the commercial communitarian welfare benefit “this state” could make this possible. For if we truely were a nation of law, knowing the remedy should place one in sovereign capacity instead of under threat of death by gunfire for placing an armed thugs “in fear of my life.” But, history repeats itself, just like Jesus was killed by the attorneys for only seeking the enforcement of the law. The esoteric described story of Jesus is the life of all people who follow the law and seek enforcement of the law. The brain dead average resident will always call for the release of BAR ABBAS, as in “all we want is more drugs, sex, and rock and roll.” -
Franklin,
Fabulous! Very excited to hear the people FINALLY realize, hopefully on a large scale, the fraud that is being perpetrated on them by the de facto THIEVES running the government and the legal profession.
That guy didn't go far enough with the judge. He should also have established the following facts prior to the commencement of the proceeding:
1. That he was under duress to represent MR ROGER HAYES.
2. That he does not CONSENT to represent ROGER HAYES.
3. That without CONSENT of himself, MR ROGER HAYES is a FRAUD and cannot lawfully exist. Hence, the judge is engaged in CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT and KIDNAPPING in violation of:
3.1 42 U.S.C. §405(c )(2)(c )(i)
3.2 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)
3.3 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7)
3.4 18 U.S.C. §1028A
3.5 18 U.S.C. §654: Anyone who uses a public number in connection with your private property without your consent is guilty of conversion.
4. That the source of the duress, and not the compelled actor human being who is the object of the fraud and duress, is ultimately the defendant. In this case, the JUDGE is the source of the duress.
5. That the duress by the judge is causing the human being to be compelled to represent MR ROGER HAYES, and hence, the human being is representing the JUDGE, who in turn is representing MR ROGER HAYES, the public officer straw man. Hence, the REAL defendant is the JUDGE.
6. That the judge is evading criminal liability for his attempt to conceal the duress by playing word games. Those word games are described in:
6.1 Meaning of the Words “includes” and “including”
http://famguardian.o…c/Includess.pdf
6.2 Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…atusOptions.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
For additional resources on fighting JUDICIAL identity theft, see:
Property and Privacy Protection, Section 11
http://famguardian.o…ertyPrivacy.htm