|
To Fred Avera C/O We the People
Category: Dreams and the Supernatural
Star Gazer
To Fred Avera C/O We the People
Dear Ron Paul, Dear Jhon Edwards,
*Luuk'in'en, Horner, Avera!
RULE 53 REFORM = CPS REFORM, too.
Our children are not property! Our parenting skills are something we learn as we go and are not property!
Beware Child Protective Services:
What Victims, Advocates, and Mandated Reporters Need to Know:
This is just a tiny bit of what you need to know.
The only way I have found that gets the courts attention is to stand as a Belligerent Claimant and demand whatever Rights you have whether you are a state Citizen or U.S. citizen.
We are all equal as debtors and the only differences are in your contract. The Bill of Rights and Amendment XIV are alive and well when you demand due process under the UCC.
If your contract is in default or dishonored, you must revoke signatures and rely on the unconscionable clause at UCC 2-302. "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." -
Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336, U.S. 281. See also: Caha v. U.S.,
Our children are being taken from their homes on the powers of presumption assigned to the power of a bureaucrat, just like the tax auditor has.
Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance. US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
If you don't know how to refute a non-allegation you lose.
Failure to refute the paper will give your adversary an "expectation" and belief that you are considering the proposal and their process will continue. Your administrative record will not contain any facts to refute the agency presumption of debt and the judge will give agency summary judgment.
If you don't know that you have to refute the non-allegation your lawyer does not do it for you either!
The administrative record will reflect the fact that you are also "without dishonor" and not "willfully" or "intentionally" [FRCP 12 (b (6)] failing to pay or fill out paperwork per the code until agency produces a valid claim.
To learn how to reserve your inalienable rights write to MADatCPS
madatcps@aol.com
I will send you CPS (free) HAND BOOK --- and links to where you can do your own legal research, then more links to where you can post your questions and answers you find, or your story and case file.
I am not allowed to represent you or give you 'legal advise', NOR WOULD I, but there is stuff you can read to empower your own legal interpretations, and keep your lawyer in check, were you don't get the proper counsel you can put a limitation.
There is stuff you need to do before your children lose their legal inheritance, their natural born rights. This is your Firs Amendment right and your right to freedom of speech, according to both your my constitutions here in oregon. So, help me alter our relationship with our government... The more you know the more fired up you will get about it! Just take a peek!
Reserve your rights now...
Judge the bench
Until then reserve your rights the best you can and sign your name like so:
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UCC 1-308
Your Name
dogettydoggonedo <- Where did the government burry your inalienable rights
Now go look up the word 'in' in Black's Law dictionary and you will
see why you should reserve them because they indeed have been
alienated!
From: myspace/we_recall_judge_horner
Date: Aug 18, 2007 9:43 PM
Mailed to tons and tons of people.... on two continents.
REGARDING: http://www.dcrally2007.com/
DCRally2007
AUGUST 18-19, 2007
"Family Preservation Day"
&
RULE 53 REFORM with FOI -
WHAT HOLLYWOOD IS TO: 'LORD OF THE RINGS'; HORNER,
LUUKINEN AND AVERA ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF: WHAT TWIN
TOWERS OF TECHNICALITIES IS TO: 'LORD OF THE JURY IN
FELLOWSHIP OF THE DUPLICIT':
Do Your Own Investigation Into DHS Perjury
Get THE FACTS OF MY CASE FILE with this letter generator:
http://www.splc.org/foiletter.asp
Provided by: Student Press Law Center.
The following was sent Sat, 18 Aug 2007 1:10 PM
To: US Government e-mail list: See: madatcps@aol.com for TRUE COPY:
Subject: RULE 53 REFORM with FOI - CPS REFORM issue
and the book 'Without Prejudice".
Dear John Edwards,
Dear Ron Paul,
Here is what I have in mind the CPS REFORM issue as a public service and away to draw people to his web page and to the book 'Without Prejudice'.
Here is what I have in mind for Dear Zechariah B. Singleton, if he
would like to seek relief from the duress he said he is / was under
in his letters to me, minus what he said is true about Bleu might be
affected by his not screening his mail...sos...to a lol... Which
directly has bearing on the 'avalanche' I wanted him to cause...
and would like to see still...
See: Avalanche on some 'certain persons'
head...and make a big noise.
I think it is time to make a big noise, and here is my way of trying
to get 'paper ammo' into this 'legal battle zone' against RULE 53 &
Partial Cross 'Consolidation' pursuant to the right to equal
protection of our substantive due process rights...
If you wish to come to my son's aid please fire your pen
in this direction:
See: My DEMANDS for DISCOVERY...
To: Judge Luukinen:
To Judge Horner
To: Judge Sullivan:
To: Judge Avera
To: DHS
See: Chandra Snyder: pseudo judiciary who did not allow a rebuttal.
See: Judge Avera Luukinen and Horner not allow a rebuttal.
See: Horner not letting me redirect or have a turn in court.
See: Luukinen's double minded application of RULE 53 while he
denied me equal protection of the right to face my non-accuser.
See: Matt L. Hawkins say, "We have no way to sink our teeth into
this".
See: Marry Anne E. Miller find some teeth anyway and close the
case then say, "UNABLE TO DETERMINE".
See: Max R. Wall becomes the Bureaucrat Protection Agency.
See: My pseudo judiciary, who also has citizen arrest powers,
circumvent the 'probable cause stage' of my case while CLOSED,
and also closed at screening.
See: Judge Horner pay homage to self and allow irrelevant police
allegation as 'probable cause' and include THE SAME STUFF I HAD
TRIED TO GET PRESENTMENT OF FOR ALMOST A YEAR be brought
against me without a petition of its own.
See: Max R. Wall become seer of the court with Psychology the
Wild Card.
See: Judge Avera ignore the right to the security of my papers and
pre convict me of attacking a bureaucrat before the bureaucrat
filed a claim or was actually attacked.
See: Criminal conviction in the wrong venue for a crime
uncomitted. See: Motto of the courtroom, "IN DHS WE TRUST",
psychology is a commercialized god.
Finally! The format to get the info you need!
FOI Link: at Fight CPS Web Page:
http://www.splc.org/foiletter.asp
We have plenty of crimes against women and children to find
solutions for. We should contribute our time and efforts into
providing a means for true victims of violence to find relief from
unworthy circumstance without tearing up the family. While you
are looking into solving the current Child Protective Services
issues please go look at help for victims of violence:
Admin@onlinevoices.org
Voices Against Violence: http://onlinevoices.org/
While you are visiting Voices Against Violence please help the
victims of violence. But, don't forget to investigate how RULE 53
REFORM has bearing on 'Liberty', your legal inheritance, your
citizenship, your right to 'raise a family', which is the true
definition of 'Life', with respect to your United States Constitution
and Black's Law definition.
Now, regarding: RULE 53 REFORM has bearing on 'Liberty' ... Oh,
the draft at the end of this letter is my attempt to establish DHS
did not have any thing other that 'Psychology the Wild' Card to
bully me with, and is just covering the lack of presentment
between the dates January 12, to February 14th, {but deliberately
limiting my inquiry to what was in the record prior to my
conversation with Matt L. Hawkins at the Independence Police
Department}. Said conversation, with Matt L. Hawkins, which
pertains to DHS demands for my compliance on a closed case...
See: O5P2064 & O5P2176 for: Letter from DHS denying me access
to information, which is in Exhibit in my case and filed.
The DHS PARTIALLY CROSS CONSOLIDATE, both children's 'Life's,
though nothing alike, but do the rest of the RULES OF COURT
APPLY TO THAT AGENCY?...'THAT IS A WHOLE NOTHER STORY'
REGARDING DHS PERJURY AT THE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD, WHERE
JUDGES LEVERAGE THEMSELVES WITH A PSEUDO JURY [THEIR BACK
UP SQUAD]. AND WE DON'T GET A JURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judges Luukinen and Horner, deliberately disregard the right to
face your accuser, and Horner deletes the court record and neither
I nor Zack made a MOTION to have my objections erased from
court record thereto, both cases, PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED...
[[[While one got dismissed]]] ... but, Judge Luukinen, with the
automatic power over RULE 53 -- {consolidation}, did not allow
the DHS to come and present their purported evidence against me.
So, I don't get equal protection of Luukinen's use of his power
position. I asked to have one case heard so it would have bearing
on the DISMISS MOTION of the other, like Luukinen's example
'later'. He allowed Petition III to have bearding on the other. I
never having that chance to rebut the no allegation and a letter
from Chandra Snyder is in Court Record stating, ''' no reply from to
the volume of your letters from the DHS. ''' THE CASE IS CLOSED '''.
The above is judt a tiny part of why I say: "WHAT HOLLYWOOD IS
TO: 'LORD OF THE RINGS'; HORNER, LUUKINEN AND AVERA ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF: WHAT TWIN TOWERS OF TECHNICALITIES IS TO:
'LORD OF THE JURY IN FELLOWSHIP OF THE DUPLICIT'" :
Judge Luukinen was not fair with me he did not give me equal
protection of his RULE 53, 'Just say', "Yes, Massa", move. These
CASEs, this letter, these FOIs, stand to attest, "You have no right
to 'Face The Assessor'", and have to: "Just say, 'Yes, Master', or you
lose by default even when there is no case pending trial.
.........SOS.............SOS.............SOS.........SOS........
TREASON ON THE BENCH!!!!!!!!!!
RULE 53 REFORM IS NEEDED TO TAKE THE 'Just say',
'YES, MASSA ME MOVE' AWAY FROM THE JUDICIARY.
RULE 53 REFORM with FOI
http://www.splc.org/foiletter.asp
.........SOS.............SOS.............SOS.........SOS........
Do Your Own Investigation Into DHS Perjury
Here is mine:
August 4, 2007
Department of Human
Services Child Protective Services
177 SW Oak St Dallas, Oregon 97338
Dear Disclosure Officer,
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of any facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the staff meeting held on February 14th, 2005, if it is relevant to the reason DHS came to my door on November 22, 2005. Please include all Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' or releases for access thereto logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show there was any other finding possible other than a disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE for the January 10, 2005 call assigned to Marry Anne E. Miller. My request is pursuant to OAR definitions regarding 'harm' or 'eminent threat' with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of any and all Exhibits of 'Probable Cause' logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show there was any other finding possible other than a disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE for the January 10, 2005 call assigned to Marry Anne E. Miller.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of any and all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the reason DHS came to my door on November 22, 2005. Please include any and all Exhibits of 'Probable Cause' logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Melanie LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show there was any other finding possible other than a disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE for the January 10, 2005 call assigned to Marry Anne E. Miller. My request is pursuant to the Oregon Administrative Definitions regarding 'harm' or 'eminent threat'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of any and all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the case assigned on November 21, 2005. Please include all Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' or releases for access thereto logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show cause for Marry Anne E Miller to say the disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE merited the use of the 'term' 'Major Safety Threat'. My request is pursuant to the OAR definitions 'harm', conditions and circumstances, and ability to manage or recognize safety threats with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect on two counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the case assigned on November 21, 2005. Please include all invitations to uphold the Sixth Amendment right to PRESENTMENT, in numerous letters mailed to this address from Marilyn LeBaron prior to mid April of 2005, directly pertaining to CPS activity toward protecting my son from any damages adjacent to the allegation of medical neglect. Please include any documented comments from any staff members, or letters of response regarding those letters, if any. Please include any authorities relied upon if those comments or notes are included as Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' and pertain to Thomas AB LeBaron, and date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show cause for Marry Anne E Miller to say the disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE merited the use of the 'term' 'Major Safety Threat'. My request is pursuant to the OAR definitions 'harm', conditions and circumstances, and ability to manage or recognize safety threats with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect on two counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the case assigned on November 21, 2005. Please include all invitations to uphold the Sixth Amendment, our inalienable right to PRESENTMENT, entered in numerous letters mailed to this address from Marilyn LeBaron prior to mid April of 2005, which directly pertaining to CPS activity presented as protective or remedial toward protecting my son from damages adjacent to the allegation of medical neglect. Please include any documented comments from any staff members, or letters of response regarding those letters, if any. Please include any authorities relied upon if those comments or notes are included as Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' and pertain to Thomas AB LeBaron, and date stamped prior to February 06, 2005. Please include any letters of correspondence by and between any agencies authorized and mandated to cross report if said correspondence could be construed as cross reporting but limited your response to that which is directed from DHS staff toward the numerous letters mailed to DHS from 1465 E. Street, Independence, Oregon 97351. My request is pursuant to the OAR definitions 'harm', conditions and circumstances, and ability to manage or recognize safety threats with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect on two counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, PCCC, Horner presiding, with relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the date November 21, 2005. Please include all invitations extended to DHS staff to uphold the Sixth Amendment, or PRESENTMENT, entered in numerous letters mailed to this address from Marilyn LeBaron prior to mid April of 2005, which directly pertaining to CPS activity in and attempt to gain an opportunity for a rebuttal of allegations presented to Zachariah B. Singleton on February 08, 2005 and presented as protective or remedial toward protecting my son from damages adjacent to the allegation of medical neglect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of any facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III and the staff meeting held on February 14th, 2005, if it is relevant to the reason DHS came to my door on November 22, 2005. Please include all Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' or releases for access thereto logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show there was any other finding possible other than a disposition of UNABLE TO DETERMINE for the January 10, 2005 call assigned to Marry Anne E. Miller. My request is pursuant to OAR definitions regarding 'harm' or 'eminent threat' with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect on two counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file pertaining to O5P2064 & 05P2176, Singleton V. LeBaron, Polk County Circuit Court, Horner presiding, with the relevancy adjacent to Petition III, which got the case assigned on November 21, 2005, but adjacent to Chandra Snyder being present at the Independence Police Department, on November 18, 2005. Please include Exhibits of 'Expert Testimony' or releases for access thereto logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are date stamped prior to February 06, 2005, to show cause Supervisory Staff had good cause to say, there would have been a FOUNDED case in support of the use of the 'term' 'Major Safety Threat'. My request is pursuant to OAR definitions 'harm', 'conditions and circumstances', and 'ability to manage or recognize safety threats', with respect to the allegation of Medical Neglect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file that show cause for Supervisory Staff to say, "There would have been a FOUNDED case in support of the use of the 'term' 'Major Safety Threat', with the relevancy adjacent to conversations with Zachariah Burton Singleton, and his petition for custody, which got the case assigned on November 21, 2005, but limited to what is directly adjacent to Chandra Snyder being present at the Independence Police Department on November 18, 2005. Please include any demands for access to any information thereto logged in DHS records, and DHS records only prior to April 2005 and directly pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are relevant to any Points in Fact prior to the date February 06, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file that show cause for Supervisory Staff to say, "There would have been a FOUNDED case", in support of the use of the 'term' 'Major Safety Threat', with the relevancy adjacent to conversations with Zachariah Burton Singleton, and his petition for custody, which got the case assigned on November 21, 2005, but limited to what is directly adjacent to Chandra Snyder being present at the Independence Police Department on November 18, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file that show cause for Supervisory Staff, 'who read my letters' and ignored my demands for access to any information thereto. I seek for this request for disclosure that which is logged in DHS records, and DHS records only, prior to April 2005 and directly pertaining to Thomas AB LeBaron, which are relevant to any Points in Fact prior to the date February 06, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pursuant to the state open records law, Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 192.410 to 192.524, I write to request access to and a copy of all facts regarding the LeBaron case file that show cause for Supervisory Staff to say, "There would have been a FOUNDED case", in support of, "Major Safety Threat", between the dates of February 08 and February 14th of 2005, with the relevancy adjacent to conversations with Officer Banuelos on or about Jan 12, 2005, and the petition for custody, which overturned my Case being closed a screening on November 14th, 2005, but limited to what is directly adjacent to Chandra Snyder being present at the Independence Police Department on November 18, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree to pay any reasonable copying and postage fees of not more than $.60 cents, as not to cause undue delay and for that reason only, as we are constantly under duress due to DHS stigmatizetion, against ORS standard. If the cost would be greater than this amount, please notify me. Please provide a receipt indicating the charges for each document_ As provided by the open records law, I would request your response within seven (7) days. If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in the award of litigation costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.
Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,
/S/
UCC 1-308, Thomas AB LeBaron, Melanie LeBaron, Victoria Couvillion, Marilyn LeBaron, Power of Attorney for the purposes of writing an Affidavit, and Power of Attorney in Fact, for her grandbaby by assign in Propria Persona for Special Visitation - portland, oregon [97233] Please limit phone contact to the cost of producing copies and postage if stipulated payment agreement is not sufficient. Neither my children nor I wish any contact with your agency, period, for any reason.
DHS IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE OUR COUNSEL OF 'no' CHOICE.
YOU ARE FIRED.
YOU SHOULD FIRE THEM, TOO. (503) 262-6723
I have lots of work to do and several places to file for ''' evidence ''' pertaining to the investigative work I did...lol...See: Freedom of Legal Speech in the form of my legal art: For a complete list of exhibits you will need to request that in person...Please see: "Sheriff Bob Wolfe"... and my [ code word here ] ... Oh, it is was sealed at the Sheriff's Office... if it still is... I don't communicate with him verbally, and he never writes back to me so I have been incommunicado from those I continue to call criminals.
gfn
UCC 1-308 <-all rights reserved In witness thereof: The Victims: Marilyn LeBaron, Thomas AB LeBaron, Melanie LeBaron, and Victoria Couvillion
From: Marilyn LeBaron To: {omitted }; To Fred Avera C/O We the People; Thomas A. B. LeBaron; judgeofpolkaveray@hotmail.com; madatcps@aol.com; casemaker@osbar.org;
Cc: e-for-mation@hotmail.com; Zachariah Singleton; Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron; juvi-rep-noncrime@hotmail.com; judgethebench@hotmail.com; judgeofpolkaveray@hotmail.com; askdoj@usdoj.gov;
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 6:51 PM
Here is some research sent to me by the author of:
"Without Prejudice".
Belligerent Claimant in Propria Persona by Special Visitation
Punch the above into Google and find tons of my blog posting spots
RE-Polk's space: Belligerent Claimant..TR> I have never been disrespectful or contemptuous and I was always truly a Belligerent Claimant In Propria Persona by Special Visitation although I did not ...
judgethebench.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FB6A58264B5D5A!123.entry - 80k - Cached - Similar pages
..TABLE>
In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148-149, 28 S.Ct. 34, 35, 52 L.Ed.143, 146 (1907), the Court stated:
The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution. (Citations omitted.)
The state policy decides whether and to what extent the state will entertain in its courts transitory actions, where the causes of action have arisen in other jurisdictions. . . . But any policy the state may choose to adopt must operate in the same way on its own citizens and those of other states. The privileges which it affords to one class it must afford to the other. Any law by which privileges to begin actions in the courts are given to its own citizens and withheld from the citizens of other states is void, because in conflict with the supreme law of the land.
The plaintiff brings the case here on writ of error, alleging that the statute thus construed and the judg- [207 U.S. 142, 148] ment based upon that construction violate article 4, 2, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' This allegation presents the only question for our consideration.
A state Citizen may use the law and facts of a controversy in federal court to the best of his ability without a title of pro se, pro per, lawyer, sui juris or defending himself. You do not admit to being capable of follow the rules or being "knowledgeable in the law." This type of defense is In Propria Persona or in your own person. Any other representation as stated above is tacit admission that the court has the jurisdictional requirement to continue with in-personam jurisdiction and you know how to defend yourself.
You could also say you have given the court permission to use his police power of contempt by using their terms. Research the terms found in this chapter so you can authenticate them for yourself because following the rules of court will put you in a matrix of unbelievable double speak and I do not have room to go through all the jurisdictions and responses.
Special appearance: Common Law: appearance is special if it is so designated and is made prior to the commencement of a suit. Defendant must appear in court and designate that his appearance is simply for the purpose of determining whether the court should have jurisdiction. Therefore, this type of hearing will never speak to the merits, sufficiency of the complaint, subject matter jurisdiction, etc at all because so doing would, subject defendant to in personam jurisdiction.
U.S. Purcell v. Miner 71 U.S. 513, 1866 WL 9482 (U.S.Dist.Col.), 18 L.Ed. 435, 4 Wall. 513,
'We do not think it necessary to a vindication of our judgment to give a history either of the pleadings or evidence disclosed by the record. The case appears to have been carried on by the parties propriâ personâ, who are excusable for their ignorance of all the rules of pleading and practice in a court of chancery, or the proper mode of taking testimony.'
US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 17:12
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:13
And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).
If you are ever in doubt about what to say, sign or plea, reserve your Rights "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
You may come across a word that you believe has the proper meaning; like capacity to contract. Words like visitation and prescription are much different in law than they appear, so look them up in your study.
1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.
(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.
Wikipedia:
The capacity of both natural and artificial persons determines whether they may make binding amendments to their rights, duties and obligations, such as getting married or merging, entering into contracts, making gifts, or writing a valid will. Capacity is an aspect of status and both are defined by a person's personal law:
for natural persons, the law of domicile or lex domicilii in common law states, and either the law of nationality or lex patriae, or of habitual residence in civil law states;
for artificial persons, the law of the place of incorporation, the lex incorporationis for companies while other forms of business entity derive their capacity either from the law of the place in which they were formed or the laws of the states in which they establish a presence for trading purposes depending on the nature of the entity and the transactions entered into.
When the g/wiki/Law "law limits or bars a person from engaging in specified activities, any agreements or contracts to do so are either voidable or void for incapacity. Sometimes such legal incapacity is referred to as incompetence. For comparison, see Competence (law)."
Code must be regarded as supreme.
Where both the code and general principles are available, the former should always be considered and applied if applicable. By legislative declaration, the code is the law, and if general principles appear inconsistent, they must be considered displaced under this section. Moreover, even where inconsistencies does not exist, the code must be regarded as supreme; general principles, even when consistent with the code, are merely supplementary. Prince v. LeVan, 486 P.2d 959 (Alaska 1971)
Authority indicates that "the principles of contract law continue under the Code." 1 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code ß 1-103:18, at 25 & cases cited n. 3 (2d ed. 1970). See Braund, Inc. v. White, 486 P.2d 50 (Alaska, 1971).
Administrative Record
The UCC provides that "principles of law and equity ... shall supplement its provisions" unless "displaced by [its] particular provisions." Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.1-103.
Authority indicates that "the principles of contract law continue under the Code." 1 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code ß 1-103:18, at 25 & cases cited n. 3 (2d ed. 1970). See Braund, Inc. v. White, 486 P.2d 50 (Alaska, 1971).
The defendant/debtor should receive an information, complaint, or indictment. The Citizen should proceed with caution and treat the presentment as though it were a, proposal, bill of exchange, or third party commercial paper. Failure to refute the paper will give your adversary an "expectation" and belief that you are considering the proposal and their process will continue. Your administrative record will not contain any facts to refute the agency presumption of debt and the judge will give agency summary judgment.
If you actually owe the debt or tax, pay it. Credit cards and mortgage instruments concern goods and/or services and this author has not found a cure for this type of debt. The cure is not within the UCC and neither are defaults. I would suggest that the reader steer clear of Acceptance For Value, UCC-1, Redemption and tax filing theories.
To rebut the validity of the presentment and reserve your Rights send your State UCC 3-501 via certified mail with return receipt. You rebut the findings of the administrative agency by demanding the instrument you signed, the names and identity of the agent or principal and the authority for the presentment or demand. A demand may be from building code agent, school officials, support or protective services, or the IRS for not filing a tax return and you must respond or you will be presumed guilty by silence and you waive rights to review of the law issues. All "triable issues of fact" must be exhausted prior to pleading and summary adjudication must be denied regarding that matter if agency attempts to push the issue into court. Your administrative record must show that you have denied the debt and are attempting to work out the issue. I have not had a presumed debt go to court when I use the UCC.
The agency may, at their discretion, ignore your demand to "exhibit the instrument" that caused the liability at their peril. They may also turn the instrument over to a collection agency and you must repeat the same process with them. The administrative record will reflect the fact that you are also "without dishonor" and not "willfully" or "intentionally" [FRCP 12 (b (6)] failing to pay or fill out paperwork per the code until agency produces a valid claim. The agency must comply with the demand or be in want of subject matter [contract], jurisdiction [FRCP 12 (b) (1)] because validation of the adversary claim must be in writing and produce proof of your obligation by showing your signature which gives the court personal jurisdiction [FRCP 12 (b) (2)] to summon you to court for the sake of the creditor. UCC 3-501 puts the tribunal on notice that your rights are reserved and you demand a presentment instrument be validated and goes to the heart of subject matter because "exhibit the instrument" also means you demand a proper charges.
Rule 12(h)(3) – "Whenever is appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action."
"Jurisdiction of the subject matter is derived from the law. It can neither be waived nor conferred by consent of the accused. Objection that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and the right to make such objection is never waived. Citing: 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law §379 (1965)" Morgan v. Alaska, id., n.11, 635 P.2d 472 (1981)
"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville RR v. Motley, 211 US 149, 29 S. Ct. 42.
The courtroom is rife with commercial activity but stay calm, even when the court tells you that the UCC does not apply. He may be partially correct in that the UCC may not apply. But the phrase "exhibit the instrument" does and you could not locate a competent lawyer to demand the instrument. You may prefer to write the UCC 3-501 in Affidavit style, which is in the "Document Section" when writing to the court. Stick to the fact that agency must perfect their claim to your person and the subject matter and "exhibit the instrument." The court does not care if you are a Citizen of the state or resident of Amendment XIV. At the administrative stage of the proceedings and the UCC phrase may be used by any "suitor" to establish a due process claim.
7:29 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment -  | 
Tools 
Send a private message
Subscribe to RSS feed
Tell a friend
Add to My MSN
Add to your network
