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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
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
solvo,
Great News!!! Thanks for passing that on. Praise God!!
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."
How 'bout those Texas Longhorns!!!!!! National Champions baby!!!!!
Texas was good,but Vince Young was from another planet
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.
Solvo - the hearing was in Federal court and had nothing to do with the Utah case.
Try to keep up.
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.
hey gforce,
you stole my thunder...lol.
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?
Scott's new address:
Dale Scott Heineman
Tooele County Detention Center
47 So. Main St.
Tooele, Utah 84074
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!
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!
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.
Ok i'm convinced.....judge roy bean is Lucifer with a computer...lol
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.
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
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!
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.
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!?!?!
SD
SD don't run from JRB.
You know what you are talking about.
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!
Post a Comment