Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Utah is a Farce

The keep telling me they will dismiss. I honestly don’t care. If the feds want to spoil their case with this bunch of bozos, I’m all for it. Any man can bond his actions; it’s a maxim older and larger than Utah. If not, Utah itself would be subject to there own prosecution. How is it that I’m granting extensions of time? I have no authorized representatives in Utah and I put my intent in writing and filed it. Perhaps Utah has some lackey to assist them in fraud. Oh by the way, TCOB247, I’m writing this from jail. You really are a dumb-ass broken record but I would like you to stay around, you’re reviling has a good purpose for me in the spirit of Shimei. Learn his story and you will know my hope for you. The insurance fraud guy said they were dismissing and my jailer has knowledge of it and repeats it. The delays may have been an attempt to get me to make a mistake which I have not done yet, which I will not do. I can do all the time I need (TCOB247) in jail to get it right and so can Scotty. TCOB247 go do your other process, make it work and then give it away for free so we can admire your virtues. I have already done the market research for you to prove a market exists and I only charged you $3,000; what a deal you got. I will send you many clients. I’ve never talked with any lawyer except upon my exit from video court and that was as a refusal of their service. I also put it in writing by registered mail just to eliminate any possible confusion. Utah is a four-letter word and a farce with countless examples.

53 comments:

Tony Tuba said...

Taco(TCOB247) swallows. I speak from experience. Give him a shot.
1-800-Blow Job

imbigo said...

Hay tcob are you there?

imbigo said...

wait let me guess, tcob will say something like,'Kurt your a scammer that has taken thousands of dollors from a bunch of uninform suckers, your a crook, bla bla bla bla bla... thats the broken record part LOL. no disrespect !!!

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

Whats up solvo & will...

you will know them by their fruit said...

I think bwucee sums up the Doreanite clan pretty well. WTF is a close second.

Nice cult following too. What a group. A little ridicule here, a little scripture there.

You almost get a window into the workings of such folks as Koresh, and how they get folks to follow. It is interesting. Sad, but interesting.

I am sooooo glad sop posts here. Hab too. Those two will fall for anything. And it shows. That will help others.

son of a prophet said...

latest from McCanney:





January 03, 2006 late evening posting #1 ... recently there was a show aired on the history channel entitled "fire in the sky" claiming that the USA has the technology to nock down any incoming asteroid or comet ... this is pure bullshit when you realize that incoming objects are rarely identified OR LOCATED in time and space and velocity with accuracy to "shoot them down" ... also if an asteroid or comet nucleus is large enough then "destroying it" will create thousands of incoming objects ... what nut case Dr Strangelove moron has been working on this scenario?? the real issue is that the really big objects do NOT have to hit earth ... remember my statements of "action at a distance" ... they interviewed Mrs Shoemaker ... Hmmm ... i did not see this myself but have people who watch these for me when my own time does not allow ... there are 2 major questions ... #1) why all the interest in the planet X topic lately on major radio and television when there is not supposed to be a planet X ??? (to defer people from thinking about reality when they see some object in the sky??) ... and 2) why all the attention on topics that are not supposed to happen according to standard science ??? ... makes one wonder why there have been soooo many shows trying to downgrade the material i have been presenting lately ... is something about to happen ??? and ooops ... just one more question ... why did they call it "fire in the sky" ... i thought comets were dirty snow balls ??? why did they not call it "ice in the sky" ... or is that more of that NASA black ice that burns in the sky ??? ... see posting #2 below ... jim mccanney





January 03, 2006 late evening posting #2 ... i took a few days off so sorry for the lack of postings ... do not miss my show this coming thursday night live 9 PM eastern time !!! i NEVER have guests on my show ... BUT ... there is someone sooo important in the history of everything i have been talking about ... i pre-recorded the upcoming show on Christmas Day 2005 as my guest and my schedules only met on that day ... so ... all i can say is DO NOT MISS IT as a final 5th special addition show related to my 4 part PLANET X series ... i am not pre-announcing the show topic or guest due to the high level of copying and cloning of my show material by hosts in the major radio media ... be assured they will all be listening with you ... jim mccanney

Clueless Fudd said...

you will know them by their fruit said...


We think we know you by being a "cUM-quat".....

Solvo said...

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!

Either Scott has been totall released or is being brought back to California, but he HAS bee released from Utah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

habakkuk said...

solvo,
Great News!!! Thanks for passing that on. Praise God!!

Peanut Gallery said...

you will know them by their fruit said,

I think bwucee sums up the Doreanite clan pretty well. WTF is a close second.

Nice cult following too. What a group. A little ridicule here, a little scripture there.


Of course fruit will ignore what has been said by elmer, taco, neo, etc,etc,etc,

Solvo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Judge Roy Bean said...

There is a detention hearing scheduled for 3:00PM Thursday (tomorrow) so don't expect anything but a transfer to CA.

The last silliness is reflected in the court docket:

"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Samuel Alba :Initial Appearance in Rule 5/5.1 Proceedings as to Kurt F. Johnson, Dale Scott Heineman held on 12/22/200. Defendants present in custody. Defendants declined to fill out financial affidavits. Defendants denied they are the persons named in the Indictment from the Northern District of CA. They requested they be known as son of Dale and son of Fred. They refused to speak to counsel from the Federal Public Defenders office. Court set the matter for a Rule 5 hearing on 1/5/06 at 3:00pm. Court ordered the defendants detained pending further hearing."

Solvo said...

Judge Roy Bean said...

The last silliness is reflected in the court docket

This "siliness" is probably the primary cause Utah don't know what the hell is going on and decided to drop the case.....

But I'm sure this is over your head, as usual.

mogel said...

The silliness is the Court demanding that they fill out "financial affidavits". What is that all about?

~~The Swami~~~ said...

How 'bout those Texas Longhorns!!!!!! National Champions baby!!!!!

Yetter said...

Texas was good,but Vince Young was from another planet

Judge Roy Bean said...

Byron - in criminal trials, a defense attorney is appointed for you if you can't afford one. To determine if you can afford one or not, you fill out a financial affidavit.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Solvo - the hearing was in Federal court and had nothing to do with the Utah case.

Try to keep up.

Solvo said...

Judge Roy Bean said...
Solvo - the hearing was in Federal court and had nothing to do with the Utah case.

Try to keep up.

JRB, are you senile? This silliness your claim they are performing is parallel in the State of Utah OR Federal case. It's all relative to their defense, so please take your own advice ("Try to keep up").

dgwondering said...

They're finally starting to go after the promoters.

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/local/story/5439048p-4911296c.html

Gforce said...

DG-----No, we are finally going after the promoters(of fraud). "...woe to them who pile up promissory notes for usury..."--Habbakuk 2:6 Amplified.

habakkuk said...

hey gforce,
you stole my thunder...lol.

WillToFight said...

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/local/story/5439048p-4911296c.html

Deborah and Rodney Austin of Tega Cay were arrested Oct. 5 on charges of fraud linked to a mortgage debt elimination scheme. They were also being held on unspecified federal charges.

This all appears to be a case of harrassment to me! Notice the charges are unspecified. i.e. They are attempting to find something. Why didn't they get a Fed Grand Jury indictment before the arrest?

Solvo said...

dgwondering said...
They're finally starting to go after the promoters.

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/local/story/5439048p-4911296c.html

Rodney Austin was doing some "extracurricular" things in regards to the process, such as having people quit-claiming their property into Rodney's name. Because he was a Dorean agent they drug dorean through the mud with his ethical snafu's.

ticktoc123 said...

One of my clients is opting to revoke his trust and back out of the mortgage elimination program.
He has to notify the company. Which office does he notify?

imbigo said...

Why would anyone remove themselves in such an exciting time?

I wounder about post like this, I think its someone trying to cast doubt in the the minds of those on the fench.

HANG IN THERE END IS NEAR!!!

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

ZUP SOLVO & WILL.

sd said...

Here is Food For Thought on the "Court" and the request for "financial affidavits" being filled out:

While on the surface Judge Roy Bean was correct when he said...
"Byron - in criminal trials, a defense attorney is appointed for you if you can't afford one. To determine if you can afford one or not, you fill out a financial affidavit."

BUT
If you really dig deep you will find that under the surface
The real reason is:
Filling out an official affidavit requires a signature under penality of perjury, thus creating the basis of a legal and binding contract between the person, party, corporation, fiction or intity filling out the form and the court... thereby creating legal jurisdiction for the court. Once jurisdiction is estabiliahed,(look around the room and see that the gold fringed flag is displayed) In Admiralty court the captain/judge rules at his will and pleasure. In other words; once you are under his authority or jurisdiction, he can make you walk the plank if he so desires.

Also once you swear (or sign) under oath (any oath or affirmation) that you have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you can then be punished for perjury for any ommissions or mistakes. (Only under "penality of perjury" can ommission be a crime, everything else requires you to commit an illegal act to be a crime), In our current courts, there is no truth, The entire court and all its' rules are fictions (see "color of law"). But your signature declares that you have full understanding of all of the rules and terms of the contract.
Whether you actually understand it or not, by signing, you have stated that you have full and complete understanding. Your actions thereby give evidence to the court that you agree to contract with the court under its' rules, regulations and statutes and that you completely understand all 66,000,000 of them.

The judge knows that you don't really understand yet you signed a paper stating/swearing that you did. By doing so you lied (you committed perjury) and you also gave up your rights to the judge who knows that you (through your own actions) proved to him that you need the help of the court and the protection given by having someone else to speak for you, (In steps the court appointed attorney, an officer of the court, a member of the Bar, a brother Attorney...I sure am glad we can trust all of them) The judge says that you need this advocate to speak for you because you don't speak the courts language. He knows this because if you did speak the language, you would never have allowed the court to have power over you. The judge now has documented proof that you are an infant, "Non Compos Mentis" or the like because you have proven to him through your actions of granting jurisdiction to him that you cannot look out for yourself. You are now a ward of the court, you are at the judges will and pleasure, and he will do with you as he wishes because you have granted him the authority to do so.

Kurt and Scott are not the persons described in the indictments, they are living souls not fictions. Neither of them is a "STRAWMAN". Even though their names sound similar they are not the same as the fictional corporations described in the indictments. Yet the court cannot change the indictment to describe Kurt and Scott because the court only works in contract commercial commerce color of law. Not with living soul beings.

As far as "son of Dale" or "son of Fred" goes, I think that Scott and Kurt are once again not giving the court the opportunity to mix there living soul selves up with the fictions(STRAWMEN) KURT and SCOTT. Once again denigning jurisdiction by not contracting with the court.

Without a binding contract (jurisdiction), the (commercial) court cannot take action.
All of this resulted in, "Case Dismissed"...

Now, on to California to see if the Feds can trip them up. Remember, it will only take one mistake on Kurt or Scott's part and the court can have a hay day.
Guilty until proven otherwise.

This whole thing is a test to see who can hold their breath the longest, it has nothing to do with justice.

Some would say that the only unfair part is that Kurt and Scott have to fight from inside. While the courts wait to see if they are going to come up for air. If they make one mistake, they will be on the inside for a long time and it will have had nothing to do with mortgage ellimination except that the court/money/bankers don't want their secrets out.

If I have any of this wrong I'm sure I will be corrected, so have at it.

Ace said...

Congratulations sd. Yours was the post I have been waiting for. You hit the nail right on the head. Lets hope Kurt and Scott don't make the mistake the court is waiting for.

yeahrightwhateverz said...

Look Imbigo, I am going to go easy on you cause you seem to respect everyone here on the board. Look, I lost my home cause this process. I am not messin around when I say that I was told to stop making my payment and never told to reinstate my loan. I was told however that everything would be taken care of and NOT to worry, TDG would take care of ALL the legal paperwork yada yada yada.

The court did not take into consideration anything that TDG put together and I HAD TO DEFEND MYSELF EACH TIME I WENT TO COURT not being familiar with ANY of TDG arguments or in courtroom procedures I was bitch slapped and made a fool of to say the least. As a matter of fact, I was promised by Gale and that bitch Jennifer that hung up on me more times than I called then laughed about it, way back when the bank filed the Summons and complaint that I would NOT have to represent myself in court WHATSOEVER yada yada yada. So quit thinking that everyone posting here is a fuckin plant from the fucked up Federal Bureau of Incestuals.

Oh, and in case any of you three, zup Will, Imbigo and Solvo, I got a secret and I aint tellin cause I know something you dont know, hang on the end is near, just 90 to 120 more days or until Kurt gets out brothas, if you had a caring bone in your bodys, I know of another client who is about to lose his home within a week who has fought his ass off ALONE trying to keep the house, they could use some of this good news you all are keepin close to yer vests.

P.S. FUCK YOU Son of a Prophets Bitch! We aint fuckin collateral damage you false prophet bastard!

yeahrightwhateverz said...

Oh, and for all you peeps sittin on the fench, RUN as fast as you can away from here or the LIE-bowls, Power In Nudity groups. Even you Dorean clients who never filed the notice of default.

Get out of the trust and search for another company who offers the Administrative procedure. I have seen proof that it works and am not arguing the validity of the process. I am ONLY arguing against what Captn Kurk is doing by giving misleading and false dates and making us clients wait for his outcome to ENLARGE our profits.

How about this, give US clients the choice as to whether we want to wait for Captn Kurks outcome, or file our damage claims NOW. I wonder how many besides Solvo, Will, and Imbigo would stick around?

What UP Solvo, Big Willy and Imbigo?

Ace said...

yeahrightwhateverz, you say find another company that offers an administrative procedure that works. You say you have seen proof that it works. Can you give us the name of these companies? Can you offer proof that anybody went through the procedure and ended up with a free and clear title to their homes? Thanks for the info.

mogel said...

Scott is no longer there in Salt Lake City since his name doesn't come up on the jail roster:

http://www.slco.org/JailRoster/

I would think that would make it official that the State of Utah dropped the charges.

yeahrightwhateverz said...

The proof I have seen is from Freedom Club USA. I am no way affiliated with this group or know anything specific about their process other than knowing that they used the administrative remedy. I know someone who was in their first phase. Go to their web site and inquire within. You will see a contact form or something to get in touch.

drhfred said...

Scott's new address:

Dale Scott Heineman
Tooele County Detention Center
47 So. Main St.
Tooele, Utah 84074

WillToFight said...

yeahrightwhateverz

Look I am going to take it easy on you.

You must understand the problem here. No one know anyone for the most part.

My question to you is did you refi after receiving the Satisfaction/Reconveyance?

Many people already were faced with foreclosure and got into the process hoping that they could be saved by the process?

I spoke with several over the course.

I myself am in a limbo situation. However, I am sticking with this process because I know it is right! I am just making a stand.

Do I want to lose anything? Hell know! Could I lose anything? Hell yes! But, I understand who the real criminal is.

Look at the government at this moment. They are looting an already bankrupt treasury! Currently the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are selling socoalled borrowers properties to overseas clients.

The crown is reclaiming the property of America as they have been doing for many years.

Ever heard of Lobbist? The Jack Abramoff story should tell you something about what goes on.

Bankers have lobbist! Think, they created regulation through the purchase of the whorish Senators and Congress that allowed their illegal/illmoral regulations/statutes to pass.

But in all that illegal/illmoral regulation there had to be a remedy. There is a remedy!

Don't you understand that the only reason that Kurt & Scott are being held and not allowed to represent themselves is due to the FACT that they do know how to use the remedy that all of us are endowed with, by sovereign rights.

Too many ignorant individuals here and elsewhere do not know or understand these things.

They are tring to wait us out. They are tring to make us all fold up our tents and go home! They know we have the remedy to their destruction and unlawful, unconstitutional actions.

We the people must stand up at some point. That is what I am attempting to do.

Sorry that you have already lost something in this process, even though it is unclear how you came to lose.

I personally know several people that have refied and have not lost anything for several different reasons. I will not share those reasons or strategies here.

No, I do not trust this site. Yes, I wish that Dorean/CCR or whom ever was able to create a forum that could allow the true clients to get together and learn together and help each other "hang in there" to the end!

It is a shame that we don't know who to trust. We don't know who are the moes, the spooks for the most part.

Stay strong! The fight must go on!

WillToFight said...

What an Accruate post SD!

I appreciate the info you putting up.

People learn from what SD is posting!

What up! Solvo, Big O, Mogel,
Too the good fight!

Judge Roy Bean said...

SD's "legal" BS has failed miserably and is nothing more than a persistent mythology. When the BS blows up in their face in court, and they loose their car or home or end up paying fines or going to jail, the promoters of these scams always blame their "customers" for not following the process correctly or they blame the court or the judge or anyone else other than themselves.

Ordinary people who could have had a competent defense and may have even won their case go off the deep end after buying into the UCC/Strawman BS, end up making fools of themselves, being sanctioned as vexatious litigants and even fined.

I've seen people try fighting foreclosures and repos with this stuff, and it doesn't work.

It ain't workin' for Kurt and Scott, either.

habakkuk said...

Ok i'm convinced.....judge roy bean is Lucifer with a computer...lol

WillToFight said...

Study, Study, Study. Study People.

Study to show thyself approved. The righteous Man/Women need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth!

At Law v. of Law? What is the question JRB?

Private Attorney General Cracks
Title 28 of the United States Code

by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 26, 2001 A.D.

Sacramento. Paul Andrew Mitchell, the Private Attorney General at the Supreme Law Firm and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library on the Internet, today announced major developments in his ongoing project to decode Title 28 –- the set of American laws that govern the federal court system.
In a brief but direct application of this knowledge, written for a trainee in federal litigation, Mitchell demonstrated how the federal courts lacked original jurisdiction in the anti-trust case against the Microsoft Corporation.

That case was allegedly brought by the “United States of America” (or “USA”), but attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have no powers of attorney to represent the “USA”, as such. Willful misrepresentation is a violation of the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B, which requires DOJ attorneys to obey State Bar disciplinary guidelines:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html

The federal government recently reversed its policy in the case against the Microsoft Corporation, and is now pushing equitable settlements across the board.

The term “USA” is mentioned only once in Title 28 –- at section 1746 –- and there it is clearly distinguished from the “United States” –- the proper legal term that is used for the federal government throughout Title 28:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html

Mitchell’s findings have consequences that reach far beyond the anti-trust case against Microsoft. It is now painfully apparent that DOJ are pretending to represent the “USA” in all civil and criminal cases, intentionally to avoid exercising the judicial power of the United States.

Under Article III in the U.S. Constitution, this power must be exercised in constitutional courts that guarantee cherished fundamental Rights, like the Right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Article III courts must be convened to hear Controversies to which the United States is a Party (singular).

To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has also erred by ruling that the term “Party” as used in Article III means “Plaintiff” but not “Defendant”. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933). In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the term “Party” embraces both plaintiffs and defendants.

By substituting the “USA” as Plaintiffs (plural), DOJ have perpetrated a fraud by switching to legislative courts where fundamental Rights are not guarantees, but merely privileges granted (or denied) at the discretion of arbitrary judges, sitting on legislative tribunals. Mitchell describes these courts as operating in legislative mode as opposed to constitutional mode.

Glaring proof of this fraud can be seen at section 132 of Title 28. In this section, Congress attempted to broadcast into all 50 States a territorial tribunal –- the United States District Court (“USDC”). Congress did this under another pretense, namely, that those States could be treated as if they were all federal Territories:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/132.html

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invented a false doctrine by which the U.S. Constitution did not extend into U.S. Territories and Possessions. Mitchell later refuted this doctrine, after discovering two Acts of Congress that expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into the District of Columbia in 1871 A.D., and then into all federal Territories in 1873 A.D. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; and 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively.

In the year 1992 A.D., Paul Mitchell authored a popular classic book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue. The Federal Zone is now in its eleventh edition.

In that book, he proved that federal municipal law governs U.S. Territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, but federal municipal law does not extend into any of the 50 States of the Union. The income tax statutes in the Internal Revenue Code are federal municipal law.

Because they are not yet States of the Union, Congress is the state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone. In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).

Section 132 of Title 28 is even more deceptive for creating the false notion that the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was abolished, but nothing could be further from the truth. A careful reading of section 132 reveals that the DCUS is not even mentioned in that statute.

The DCUS was never expressly abolished by any Act of Congress, and it is still mentioned in numerous other places throughout Title 28. Congress knows how to abolish a court when it wants to do so. The Ninth Circuit has also ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. Thus, for the DCUS to be abolished, a clear Act of Congress would be required to effect that result. Whatever Congress creates, Congress must destroy.

Another stunning application of this knowledge came recently, when a federal criminal defendant appealed to the Ninth Circuit to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. An interlocutory order is one that occurs before final judgment is reached at sentencing after a jury verdict.

In response to Mitchell’s pleadings, the Ninth Circuit cited a case which ruled that final judgment in a criminal case means the sentence. That citation was U.S. v. Powell, 24 F.3d. 28, 31 (9th Cir. 1994). Then, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Under Mitchell’s expert guidance, the defendant proved that the Ninth Circuit has no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the legislative USDC. However, the Ninth Circuit does have appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the constitutional DCUS. The proof is found at 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1292.html

Mitchell then persuaded the defendant to request a published opinion holding that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed also. It is already well decided that statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Such a holding is a logical extension of existing federal case law.

Clearly, these findings expose the USDC in all 50 States as a summary tribunal that compels criminal defendants to endure lengthy trials, conviction and sentencing before any U.S. Court of Appeals can take jurisdiction under the Final Judgments Act at 28 U.S.C. 1291:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1291.html

In closely related developments, the main culprit has now been identified as the Act of June 25, 1948, in which Congress radically re-organized the entire federal court system. This is the Act of Congress that broadcasted the USDC from the federal Territories into all 50 States of the Union. This Act has now been formally challenged for being deliberately vague, and therefore unconstitutional.

By attempting to re-define the DCUS retroactively, this Act also violates the ex post facto prohibition at Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution. This prohibition strictly bars Congress from enacting laws that have any retroactive effect. Without a clear amending statute, Congress cannot later re-define the term “District Court of the United States” in statutes that predate June 25, 1948 A.D.

For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act was first enacted in the year 1890 A.D., and that Act granted original jurisdiction to the DCUS. Subsequently, the Act of June 25, 1948, did not change or otherwise amend that grant of original jurisdiction to the DCUS. Therefore, cases enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act must be brought by the “United States” (not the “USA”) in an Article III federal court proceeding in constitutional mode. Identical results obtain from many other federal laws, like the Securities and Exchange Acts.

Other sections of Title 28 have already been challenged properly in court for violating the U.S. Constitution. In 1996 A.D., in the case of a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury, Mitchell was allowed to prove that the federal Jury Selection and Service Act is also unconstitutional. That Act expressly discriminates against Citizens of the 50 States –- the only class of Citizens contemplated when Article III was being drafted, circa 1787 A.D. For definitive authority on this crucial point, see Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914.

There are now two (2) classes of citizens under American laws that have never been repealed ‑‑ State Citizens and federal citizens ‑‑ but only State Citizens are qualified to be federal lawmakers. See the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution; the “United States” in those provisions means “States united”.

Moreover, those Citizens who are qualified to make federal laws cannot vote or serve on any juries, State or federal. And, those who can vote and serve on juries are not qualified to make federal laws.

This seriously twisted situation is due, in part, to the Act of June 25, 1948, and related Congressional efforts to foist a legislative democracy upon all 50 States. These efforts violate the Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government is required by that Clause to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the 50 States of the Union.

Paul Andrew Mitchell can be reached at email address:

supremelawfirm@yahoo.com

He is currently available for speaking engagements on this, and related topics in American constitutional law, the focus of his extensive judicial activism.

sd said...

JRB,

Please dissect my previous post and show me specific statements that I made that are incorrect.

In a legal arguement,
Material furnished as evidense in a case or arguement of anykind, if left unrebutted stand as fact.

So, Rebut my prior statements one at the time and let the readers make the conclusions as to what is "BS".

I object to your statement that the info was "BS". You are making a conclusion and that is not acceptable unless you back up your statements with fact.

Your turn

sd said...

One more thing JRB,

I have not stated anywhere that I agree with the STRAWMAN tactic of defense, neither do I suggest that anyone use the information as a defense.
I just stated my view of what had taken place thus far, and my perspective of how our judicial system works.

If the method has been used in the past and was unsuccessful, it is because (as I stated very plainly earlier) it only takes ONE MISSTAKE and YOU LOSE.

Losing a battle does not necessarily mean that an initial plan is flawed, it only proves that a mistake was made during implimentation.

Judge Roy Bean said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Judge Roy Bean said...

Willtofight - Mitchell is a genuine nutcase who lives in a fantasy world of his own creation.

SD - you don't get to make up the rules as you go along. You and your nutty Admiralty gold-fringed-flag fraudsters spin this BS as if it were fact and lure people into situations they can't hope to win with meaningless and frivolous make-believe crap that the courts have seen over and over and routinely ignore or reject.

It's legal nonsense.

In Kurt and Scott's case, it does nothing but further impugn their veracity - hey, if you're willing to try and scam the court with that nonsense then what won't you do? All it does is help provide further evidence of their willingness to continue to engage in fraud and deceit - and it will destroy their chances for bail and if their convicted, will be considered during the sentencing.

This persistent nonsense also paints otherwise innocent fraud victims who fall prey to the debt-elimination schemes thinking the courts are so stupid that some information they bought off the Internet will save their house from foreclosure.

And again, try to keep up. That appearance had nothing to do with the Utah case. It was in Federal court involving the Federal criminal indictments. If you research Rule 5 of the Federal Criminal Procedure you'd understand why some judge in Utah was involved - all he was trying to determine was if they were supposed to have the services of a Federal Public Defender during the next steps of the process.

FYI - if Utah did indeed drop their charges, I think the Utah prosecutors did the taxpayers of that state a favor. Now the Federal criminal system can take them and put them away for a very long time at no additional expense to Utah

WillToFight said...

NO JRB it shows the Police State Mentality the you are programed to be apart of.

The Constitution is not just a God Damned Piece of Paper!

Because you call it somthing does not make it so. You have never provided any bit, eon or gluon of information that backs up what you purport to believe. I don't work off of belief. I work off of experience which is the only way to know! You would not understand what I just said.

You are not a presedent settor!

Your the one that does not see how our country has been hijacked for the past 150 years.

GET READY FOR THE BATTLE SUCKER!

WillToFight said...

JRB said

FYI - if Utah did indeed drop their charges, I think the Utah prosecutors did the taxpayers of that state a favor. Now the Federal criminal system can take them and put them away for a very long time at no additional expense to Utah.

There you go again. First you thought UTAH would end it for you, and the rest of us. Yeah kidnapping is occurring all over this country with the concent of the JD!

As long as you stay programmed you should be OK!?!?!?

JRB your continued study is necessary. Erudition should become apart of your vocabulary and thought process.

WillToFight said...

STRAWMAN IS NOT A DEFENSE!

Strawman is a position.

The facts in evidence are your defense.

Controlling the Strawman is your right to be treated as a human being not a debtor.

It is the way it is presented whether or not how the "person" individual is treated in the Admirality Courts.

Quit lying JRB! We could have an honest debat here if you'd get your head out of your ass or quit sucking your own dick. Must be pleasurable to believe your the answer!?!?!

WillToFight said...

SD

SD don't run from JRB.

You know what you are talking about.

sd said...

All Rise and Give Tribute to the Great and Powerful Judge Roy Bean.

He has convened his court and has declared that all who disagree with his way of thinking are "nutcases" that "live in a fantasy world".

I am so grateful that he has set the record straight.

Thank You Your Honor.

Although I was unaware that I was doing so, I will endeavor in the future to no longer try to make up rules as I go. (by the way, where did I try to do that?)

Now that I have agreed with my adversary;
Somebody, please show me any piece of evidence that the statements I made earlier were not based in fact.
One document that shows that the gold fringed flag is just for decoration.
One document that explains why all legal and commercial documents always have names in ALL CAPS.
I am really interested in knowing the true meaning of these things.
Especially if they very from my earlier statements.

Stating that these things are “just normal procedure” is not acceptable.
Just stating that something is one way or another is of no value if you can't back it up with documentation.

Please help me All Powerful and Wise JRB.

Just for your information, I am not trying to deceive anyone about anything. I am just participating and sharing information that I have personally researched.

I think that anyone with an open mind could glean from my writings that trying to use “STRAWMAN” info as a defense position would be fighting a very risky battle.

Call me names all you like, Insult me with your taunting attitude. Do not respond to direct questions, Do not back up any of your statements with documentation; Jumble me in with any groups you like just because you disagree with some of my statements.
If it makes you happy, then do or say anything you wish.

As my Grandma use to say "You have the right to be wrong, just as I do".

One more thing... All that I have stated can be verified with backup documentation, Can you truthfully state the same?

Pauligirl said...

The use of all-caps to set off the names of principals or parties in legal documents is very old, predating the use of typewriters, perhaps to make the names all the more conspicuous in a document otherwise entirely written in copperplate script at a time when a large part of the general public could barely read block lettering. The UCC 1-201(10) deals with whether some detail is "conspicuous" and says "Language in the body of a form is conspicuous if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color." In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax scofflaw whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98; this ploy ultimately failed. Assoc.Press, Man and two sons found guilty of tax fraud (2/3/99); B.L. Kaufman, Three tax evaders are found guilty, Cinc. Enq., 2/4/99. The Supreme Ct held in Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 US 385 at 395, that "even in names, due process of law does not require ideal accuracy. In the the spelling and pronunciation of proper names there are no generally accepted standards, and the well-established doctrine of idem sonans ... is recognition of this." In that case a person with the unusual name of Albert Gilfuss ignored the delivery of a summons and court pleadings against "Albert Guilfuss" [presumably typed in all-caps] and the default judgment against him was binding; similarly a misspelling in an indictment, Faust v. US (1896) 163 US 452. On a related matter, courts have rather emphatically and consistently insisted that pleadings and other court papers be typed and presented in a manner congenial to the judges' preferences (and the court rules), and, for example, courts have forbidden litigants to use certain hard-to-read typefaces; Brown v. Carpenter (WD Tenn 1995) 889 F.Supp 1028; Casas Office Machines Inc. v. Mita Copystar Machines Inc. (D PR 1993) 847 F.Supp 981 vac. on other grounds 42 F3d 668; or typefaces which are smaller than prescribed, or briefs which exceed the prescribed number of pages, etc. etc,, and in many instances courts have rejected the offending paperwork and issued default judgments against the party who violated the stylistic formulae......

Some who tried it and lost.....
Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps): US v. Lindbloom (WD Wash unpub 4/16/97) 79 AFTR2d 2578, 97 USTC para 50650; Braun v. Stotts (D Kan unpub 6/19/97) aff'd (10th Cir unpub 2/4/98); Jaeger v. Dubuque County (ND Iowa 1995) 880 F.Supp 640 at 643 ("The court finds Jaeger's arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status...."; crank's reference to a law dictionary's definition of "capitalize" -- as a financial term -- was completely misdirected); Vos v. Boyle (WD Mich unpub 4/11/95); Liebig v. Kelley-Allee (EDNC 1996) 923 F.Supp 778; Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff'd (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069; Smith v. Kitchen (10th Cir 1997) 156 F3d 1025, 97 USTC para 50107; US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329; J. Napier v. Jonas (WD Mich unpub 2/10/95); Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99); Rosenheck & Co. Inc. v. US ex rel IRS & Kostich (ND Okla unpub 4/9/97) 79 AFTR2d 2715 (court explicitly found that perp was the same person as his name typed in all-caps and without punctuation); ("claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources") Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24; US v. Klimek (ED Penn 1997) 952 F.Supp 1100 (tried to refuse all pleadings and court papers that spelled his name in all caps and without intervening punctuation); Rippy v. IRS (ND Calif unpub 1/26/99) ("Plaintiff's response ... consists of nothing more than a protest against the capitalization of his name in the caption. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants and against plaintiff."); ditto Hancock v. State of Utah (10th Cir unpub 5/10/99) 176 F3d 488(t); (tax evasion defendant's refusal to read court papers that capitalized his name and his other misbehavior justified the court refusing to reduce the his sentence) US v. M.L. Lindsay (10th Cir 7/1/99) _F3d_, 99 USTC para 50648, 84 AFTR2d 5102; (tax evader complained of "his name being in capital letters in a prior order issued by this Court and then ... makes an incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law and ... is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior." and fined under Rule 11) Stoecklin v. US (MD Fla unpub 12/8/97); (claimed that name on indictment is not him but a "fictitious" person because all-caps, "this contention is baseless.") US v. Washington (SDNY 1996) 947 F.Supp 87; Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 9/4/97); Brown v. Mueller (ED Mich unpub 6/24/97); Harvard v. Pontesso (6th Cir unpub 8/8/97) 121 F3d 708(t); Gdowik v. US (Bankr. SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97); Cole v. Higgins (D. Ida unpub 1/23/95) 75 AFTR2d 1102 rept adopted (D. Ida unpub 2/27/95) 75 AFTR2d 1479 aff'd (9th Cir 4/1/96) 82 F3d 422(t), 77 AFTR2d 1586; (crank called it "killed on paper") Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997) 974 F.Supp 1411; US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t); In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326 (tried to sue judge for violating his civil rights by having his name printed in court documents in a way other than the "appellation" this crank prefers, crank reacted by refusing to respond to prosecution's complaint whereupon the judge entered a Not Guilty plea on his behalf; suit against judge dismissed) ; Capaldi v. Pontesso (6th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1122; US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24; ("I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal .... but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous." litigant tried to deny validity of traffic ticket because it printed the court's name in all-caps) Davis v. Deddens (SD Ohio unpub 4/18/98); similary (in drug prosecution) US v. Wacker (10th Cir unpub 3/31/99); {In a Missouri arraignment in 1996, "one of the 'freemen' stood up to announce that ... he refused to recognize anything but his 'full Christian name' [evidently not printed in all caps and with some strange punctuation]. This resulted in an unusual scene: An arrest warrant was issued and executed for the defendant's failure to appear at his arraignment even though he was physically present in the courtroom." J. W. Nixon & E. R. Ardini, Combating Common Law Courts, Criminal Justice, spring 1998, page 14. In fact, "Christian name" means only the first name and does not include a middle name. Keene v. Meade (1830) 28 US 1, and Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn (1840) 39 US 322; the middle name or initial is not necessarily part of someone's "full"name. 65 CJS "Names" sec. 4 p.5 (1966), 57 Am.Jur.2d "Name" sec. 5 p.654 (1988).
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/suss4.asp#capitals

Do you know of anybody that tried the allcaps thing and won?

Ace said...

I got my first drivers liscense and Social security Card in 1966. I still have them both and my name was spelled correctly on both of them. Not like the all caps letters today. I wonder what the judges would say if people started to sign court papers by printing their names in all cap letters?

Ace said...

Yo Banker Roy Bean, You take it up the WAZOOO!

Tony Tuba said...

Taco and Judge Bean have one thing in common, they both like it in the wazoo. I know, I speak from experience.

sd said...

Pauligirl,

I don't personally know anyone that has tried and I sure wouldn't go into court and try to defend myself using only one defensive point or stradigy.
As I stated before on at least 3 other occassions, "One mistake and you lose".

Once jurisdition is estabilished, the judge can tell you what he will allow as evidense in "His" courtroom. That is a pretty strong position.

JRB told me that "you can't make up the rules as you go." He's right that I can't But now days in the courts, "OUR" judges seem to be doing just that.

WillToFight said...

It is not "using the STRAWMAN" as a defense in Court.

It is having that position of a "Competent" Human Individual that of controlling the STRAWMAN v. being the "Incompetent" SLAVE through knowledge of the system giving the "pro se" litigant much more power manuveurablity and respect in the courtroom.

But NO YOU Could not use a STAWMAN as an only defense tactic in Commerce "non-judicial" situations!

Nobody here has said that Pauligirl!