textfiles/magazines/FROGFARM/frogfarm.02

Welcome to the second installment of the Frog Farm. We hope you have had
a chance to formulate some questions or comments on the first mailing.
With no further ado, let's dive into our five pieces:

1) Elements of a Preferred Courtroom Strategy
2) Various and Sundry Case Law w/comments
3) Common Law School Held By Popular Demand?
4) So what the heck are these Ashwander Rules, anyway?
5) Edited notes taken at John del Buono's 9th Amendment seminar

**


                           ELEMENTS OF STRATEGY

 Research all pertinent statutes, rules, regulations, legislative history,
court cases, and treatises.  In short, become an expert on the narrow points
of law of the case.  Get a guide to "A Guide to Federal Agency Rule
Making."

 Project the position of underdog, intelligence, honesty, fear, indignation,
issue of principle/belief, determination, calm, non-antagonism, non-arrogance.

 Don't do, say or write anything that may be used against you legally or
politically (foul language, threats, radical invectiveness, and so on).

 Draw battle-lines on important political issue championed by many of the
public, even if they are only of secondary importance to your case.

 Publicity:  Expose wrong-doing by government/court.

 Limit your opponent's options through unilateral discovery, FOIA,
jurisdiction, behaving impeccably in public and condemnation of
adversaries' acts.

 Don't limit your options:  Don't itemize your defenses, give information
enabling your opponents' preparation to meet defense or amendment of charge to
your detriment.

 Ensure your credibility:  Only one adversary per battle, if possible.  Don't
add names or issues to the debate.

 Don't alienate any potential supporters by ignoring the "one adversary, one
issue" rule.

 Don't appear to be a legal know-it-all.  It may work in a seminar, but no
chance with the general public.  Ideally, the legal knowledge or other
assistance comes from "unknown" supporters; at least, it should appear that
way to most Joe Sixpacks who are naturally suspicious of rationality and
reason.

 If the public perceives that you are capable of handling yourself and are not
the underdog, they will likely withdraw their support, especially if you are
filing offensive actions as opposed to defensive.

 The ideal defense team will possess these components:

          Political advisor
          Public relations man/media liaison
          Charismatic trial lawyer
          Expert in law theory
          Expert in legal issues at bar
          Expert in courtroom rules and procedure
          Law clerk/researcher
          Constitutionalist/historian
          Courier
          Resource/Funding

 Do not sign your name frivolously.



                        Six Steps of Action
                       CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

        1.  Inform adversary of what he is intentionally doing, 
and that what he is doing is not proper (duty, breach of duty).

        2.  Tell him he is violating substantive rights (injury).

        3.  Tell him he is violating express sections of the 
public law (more breach of duty).

        4.  State the damages (what he owes you) and that the 
violations of public law may be punishable under such laws as 
18 USC Sec. 241, 242; 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986, and any 
others that will apply.

        5.  Demand that he, in good faith, cease the conduct or
correct the violation, and to do so within a specific time period.

        6.  Warn him that if he does not correct the situation, 
you will take legal action against his person (in personam) and 
against his property (in rem) to secure your substantive rights, 
to redeem your damages, and to exact the penalties.


                    Elements of a CAUSE OF ACTION

        1.  Define the duty that the counter-defendant owes to 
the counter-plaintiff.  This can be done by quoting statutory 
law, case law, or simply stating some moral rule.

        2.  Describe what the counter-defendant (or his 
agent/employee) did to breach that duty.

        3.  Show that the breach of duty caused an injury or 
detriment.

        4.  Describe the injury itself.

        5.  Measure the extent of the injury in terms of (lawful) 
money or assets.  In other words, state what the counter-
defendant owes you to compensate you for the injury.  It could be 
Federal Reserve Notes, lawful money (dollars of silver or gold), or
his house, car or other real property.


         FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

     [5] "The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for 
failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed 
'***unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of 
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'  CONLEY 
VS.  GIBSON, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78, S.Ct. 99, 102, 2LEd 2d 80; 
SEYMOUR VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule 
54c, demand for judgment, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA:  
"***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose 
favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such 
relief in his pleadings."  U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION, 2 Fr 
Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535

"A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of 
claim, baseless though it may eventually prove to be, and inartistically as 
the complaint may be drawn.  Therefore, under our rules, the plaintiff's 
allegations that he is suing in "criminal libel" should not be literally 
construed.  [3]  The complaint is hard to understand but this, with nothing 
more, should not bring about a dismisal of the complaint, particularly is 
this true where a defendant is not represented by counsel, and in view of 
rule 8{f} of the rules of civil procedure, 28 U.S.C., which requires that 
all pleadings shall be construed as to do substantial justice BART VS. CITY 
OF NEW YORK, 2Cir., 1946, 154? F.2d 791.  Accordingly, the complaint will 
not be dismissed for insufficiency.  [4,5]  Since the Federal Courts are 
courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff must always show in his 
complaint the grounds upon which that jurisdiction depends.  STEIN VS. 
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, DCCDJ 
1950, 11 F.R.D. 153.

"A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even 
though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts, 
it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to 
recover."  JOHN EDWARD CROCKARD VS. PUBLISHERS, SATURDAY EVENING POST 
MAGAZINE OF PHILADELPHIA, PA (1956) Fr Serv 29, 19 F.R.D.  511, DCED Pa 19 
1958

"FRCP 8f: CONSTRUCTION OF pleadings.  All pleadings shall be so construed 
as to do substantial justice."  DIOGUARDI VS.  DURNING, 2 CIR., 1944 139 
F2d 774

"Counterclaims will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even 
though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts, 
it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to 
recover."  LYNN VS VALENTINE VS. LEVY, 23 Fr 46, 19 FDR, DSCDNY 1956

[JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, suit cannot be dismissed because of errors in
service.]


**

A Hodgepodge Collection of Interesting Case Law
comments by Frog Farmer

 
"There  can be no  sanction or penalty  imposed upon one  because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights."  Sherar v. Cullen  481 F. 946
 
"Where  rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making  or legislation  which would  abrogate them."   U.S. Supreme
Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
 
"Constitutional  rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be."  Westbrook v. Mihaly  2 C3d 756
 
"The  right to counsel exists not only at the trial thereof, but also at
every  stage  of a  criminal proceeding  where  substantial rights  of a
criminal accused may be effected."  Mempha v. Rhay 389 U.S. 128
 
"A  conviction obtained where the accused  was denied counsel is treated
as void for all purposes."  Burgett v. Texas 389 U.S. 109
 
     Today I witnessed a case where the accused was denied assistance of
counsel in a case where he was facing 23 separate charges.  There was no
valid  complaint, and they were forcing him into a trial in a court with
no jurisdiction.  In light of the above cases, one wonders just what the
prosecution  hopes to  achieve by  proceeding without  such due process.
Maybe  the  important  thing is  making  an impression  on  the ignorant
public, both in the courtroom and in the media who will cover the event,
rather  than dealing with  the accused in  such a way  that his behavior
will  be altered in the  future.  The defendant  in the case I witnessed
today  intends to win on appeal due to the errors committed by the trial
court.   I was always  told that "show trials"  were only held in places
like  the Soviet Union,  but today I  realized that they  are popular in
this country as well.
 
"Where  rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making  or  legislation which  would  abrogate them."    Miranda v.
Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court) 380 US 436 (1966)
 
This  was the same case that was made  famous by the fact that the Court
made  it mandatory that an arrested person be advised of certain rights,
among  them being the  right to remain  silent and the  right to counsel
during  any "in-custody" interrogation.   How many people feel confident
enough to exercise those rights when stopped by a police officer?
 
 A  plaintiff  who  seeks  damages for  violation  of  constitutional or
statutory   rights  may  overcome  the  defendant  official's  qualified
immunity  only by showing that those  rights were clearly established at
the time of the conduct at issue.  Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.
 
"All  laws which are  repugnant to the Constitution  are null and void."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
 
"The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual
against  arbitrary  exactions of  majorities,  executives, legislatures,
courts,  sheriffs, and  prosecutors, and  it is  the primary distinction
between  democratic  and totalitarian  processes."   STANDLER.   Supreme
Court of Florida en Banc, 36 So 2d 443, 445 (1948)
 
"Government  may not  prohibit or  control the  conduct of  a person for
reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms."  Smith
v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)
 
"Failure  to  obey  the  command  of  a  police  officer  constitutes  a
traditional  form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot
be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command
itself is violative of the constitution."  Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284
 
"Constitutional  rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be."  Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756
 

Regarding fingerprints:
 
     Davis  v.Mississippi,  394  U.S. 721:  Fingerprint  evidence  is no
exception  to  the  rule  that all  evidence  obtained  by  searches and
seizures  in violation  of the constitution  is inadmissible  in a state
court.   Pp.723-724.    The  Fourth  Amendment  applies  to  involuntary
detention  occurring  at  the  investigatory stage  as  well  as  at the
accusatory  stage.  Pp. 726-727.   Detentions  for  the sole  purpose of
obtaining  fingerprints  are subject  to the  constraints of  the Fourth
amendment..   P.727.    "Nor  can   fingerprint  detention  be  employed
repeatedly  to harass any individual, since the police need only one set
of  each  person's  prints."    "...the  general  requirement  that  the
authorization  of a judicial officer be obtained in advance of detention
would seem not to admit of any exception in the fingerprinting context."
 
Frog  Farmer  sez:  Make  them get  a  court  order  first, specifically
authorizing the taking of YOUR fingerprints.  Fingerprints are property.
Defend them.
 

And the now-infamous and oft-mentioned Almeida-Sanchez case...
 
     Almeida-Sanchez,  413 U.S.  266: Petitioner, a  Mexican citizen and
holder  of a valid work permit,  challenges the constitutionality of the
Border  Patrol's warrantless search of his automobile 25 air miles north
of  the  mexican border.   The  search, made  without probable  cause or
consent,  uncovered marihuana, which was used to convict petitioner of a
federal crime. . .

     Held:  The  warrantless  search  of  petitioner's  automobile, made
without  probable cause  or consent,  violated the  Fourth Amendment. Pp
269-275.   (a)The search cannot be justified on the basis of any special
rules  applicable to automobile searches, as probable cause was lacking;
nor  can it be justified by  analogy with administrative inspections, as
the  officers had  no warrant or  reason to believe  that petitioner had
crossed  the border or committed an offense, and there was no consent by
petitioner. Pp269-272.

     "The  search in  the present case  was conducted  in the unfettered
discretion  of the  members of  the border  Patrol, who  did not  have a
warrant, probable cause, or consent.  The search thus embodied precisely
the  evil the court saw in Camara  when it insisted that the 'discretion
of  the official in  the field' be circumscribed  by obtaining a warrant
prior to the inspection."

     "Two  other  administrative  inspection cases  relied  upon  by the
government  are equally inapposite.   Colonnade Catering  Corp. v. U.S.,
397  U.S.  72,  and  U.S.  v.  Biswell,  406  U.S.  311,  both  approved
warrantless  inspections of commercial enterprises engaged in businesses
closely regulated and licensed by the Government."

     "A  central  difference  between  those cases  and  this  one is...
petitioner here was not engaged in any regulated or licensed business."


     Now, some important points on elements of jurisdiction.

     In  order  for  a  federal  court  to  acquire  legitimate criminal
jurisdiction  over you and  thus conduct a  lawful trial, three elements
must be present.

     The  United States Congress (1) must first make an act a crime, (2)
fix  punishments  to  it,  and  (3) declare  the  court  that  will have
jurisdiction of the offense (United States v. Hudson).

     However,  there is another way for  the court to gain jurisdiction;
the  accused can inadvertently  give the court  jurisdiction EVEN THOUGH
NONE  OF THE ABOVE  ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT.   In other  words, the accused
can, out of sheer ignorance [Or failure to take Frog Farmer seriously?],
actually  submit to  the jurisdiction of  a federal  court, although the
court should legally have no jurisdiction.
 
     I'd  like to make  this point a  little clearer.   Suppose you were
arrested for the "crime" of eating a banana during the last presidential
debates.  Let us assume that (1) you don't eat bananas and (2) you didnt
even  see the  presidential debates.   Does this  mean that  if you were
charged  with such a  crime that you  should go to  your arraignment and
plea  "not guilty"?  No, because by  pleading "not guilty", you would be
agreeing  to the existence  of such a  "crime" and would  also be giving
jurisdiction to the court to try you for it!  Thus, you could ultimately
be  found  guilty  of  an  imaginary  crime,  because  a  jury  could be
instructed by the judge that such a crime actually existed!


**

 
   91Apr23 4:45 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo _ CA

       COMMON LAW SCHOOL HELD BY POPULAR DEMAND

As you may have known, we scheduled and were ready to put on a Common Law
School for those who expressed the desire to learn the material without
having to purchase the 90 hours of videotaped lessons.  Prior to sheduling
it, many people expressed this desire to attend such a series of classes.

However, as soon as the classes were announced, it seems that the interest
in them dissipated.  Not enough people showed up to hold the class, but
those four persons who did show up all decided that they wanted to own a set
of the tapes.  Two people who didn't show up called to say that they were
going to spend the $1,000 to get the new Barrister's Inne videotape class on
procedures (42 hours + paperwork).  Paperwork alone costs $280 from
Barrister's in Idaho. The new tapes are a remake of the original school, BUT
ONLY DEAL WITH PROCEDURE, NOT ISSUES AND PROCEDURE LIKE THE ORIGINAL 90 HOUR
COURSE. Barrister's Inne decided to delete the discussion of the issues due
to the inability of today's students to comprehend such complex matters.
That's what the guy in Idaho said on the phone.

And so, by 1992, the level of average intelligence has sunk so low that over
53% of the information given to students in 1982 was deleted from the course
given in 1992, not because it was outdated (law does not change that much),
but because today's students were incapable of comprehending it.  What does
this portend for the future?

So, in the world of information, as in the economic world, the rich get
richer, and the poor get poorer, and in a world where knowledge is power,
power gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  Yet in the world of
information, being poor is often a matter of choice, not an inevitable
condition, and in the area of law, choosing to be information-poor often
leads to economic poverty, a condition which might have been avoided had the
right choices been made.

Today, a man sits in the Sonoma County jail, only because he did not know
the right words to say, and the right papers to file.  Some say that this is
injustice, that one man is imprisoned while another who knows his rights is
free.  Yet it takes effort to learn, and the choice to learn has to be made.

The man who is in jail may learn, but his lesson will end up being far more
expensive than if he had chosen to learn the easy way.  He's been in jail
for over two weeks now.  He will stay there until August unless he gets
smart sooner.  There was no need for him to spend one day.  What's YOUR time
worth?  When are you going to learn how to claim and defend your rights?  Or
are you going to try to get through life without ever doing it?


**

   90Nov20 9:45 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface
    Previously, I had mentioned that the Supreme Court had developed  
 seven rules, called the "Ashwander Rules" (Ashwander v. Tennessee  
 Valley Authority 297 US 288,346 (1935)) for qualifying a case to be  
 heard there.  According to Justice Brandeis: 

     "The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases  
 confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it  
 has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional  
 questions pressed upon it for decision.  They are: 
     1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of  
 legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining  
 because to decide such questions 'is legitimate only in the last  
 resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and  
 vital controversy between individuals.  It was never thought that, by  
 means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could  
 transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the  
 legislative act.' Chicago & Grand Trunk RR v. Wellman, 143 U.S.  
 339,345. 
      2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional  
 law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.' Wilshire Oil Co. v.  
 US, 295 US 188   'It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions 
 of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to the decision 
 of a case.'  Burton v. US, 196 US 283,295. 
     3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law  
 broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be  
 applied.'  Liverpool N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. v. Emigration Commissioners,  
 113 US 33,39. 
     4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although 
 properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other  
 ground upon which the case may be disposed of.  This rule has found  
 most varied application.  Thus, if a case can be decided on either of  
 two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a  
 question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will  
 decide only the latter.  Light v. US, 220 US 523,538. 
     5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon  
 complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its  
 operation. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 US 405  Among the many  
 applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of  
 the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. 
     6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute 
 at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.  Great 
 Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General 124 US 581. 
     7. 'When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question,  
 and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a  
 cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a  
 construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question  
 may be avoided.' Crowell v. Benson, 285 US 22,62." 
      

**

This is edited from notes taken at the February 1989 9th Amendment seminar
given by John del Buono.


 The Preamble to the Constitution says "among which are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness". It doesn't say those are the only ones.

 If we have all the rights to begin with and you have the foundation in law;
You have the Constitution as the Magna Charta, and the Constitution we created
is for the U.S.of A. ----Who can deprive you of any of your rights? What is an
inalienable right?  It is any right you can attach to yourself.
  
 If anyone has the book "The Forgotten 9th Amendment", it has been out of
print.  The writer of the book has had Government oppression since 1955;
however, there is someone trying to get the rights to get it reprinted.

 You have a right to ask questions at any time. When you have the foundation
in law of the 9th, no one can take your rights unless you let them.

 QUESTIONS:  Why are you coming against my rights? What is your authority? Who
is the injured party? Who wants to know this? Is there an injured party? What
is moving you for this information? Are you the injured party? Who doesn't
want this information?

 Under the 9th Amendment you don't Motion, you Demand -- because you can't
move yourself. When you are in Court and Demanding your rights - it is
difficult--but when they (persecutor/prosecutor) Motions the Court, you DEMAND
the opposite. If you categorize your answer under the 9th Amendment, no judge
should or can move on that answer, and they will argue with you, but they
can't move.

 You have to understand the concept of questions or you will trap yourself.
Example:  Do you like ice cream? Your response could be It Depends, or Should
I?  or Who wants to know?  On It Depends answer they will ask On what? you
say, I don't know, it is your question. If you can't think of anything to say
just say, that was my question.

 You have to know what the intent is behind what we read.  Don't answer any
ones question until you know the intent. Remember statements can be stricken
from the record, but questions can never be because it needs an answer.

  Whenever a question begins with the words DO YOU the intention is to get
information from you that can be used against you and probably will.  DO YOU
means they need information. The answer to a question that begins with the
words DO YOU? is IT DEPENDS OR SHOULD I? And if it is Should I, follow
with IT DEPENDS. Examples:  Your Honor, Why?   Is it mandatory?     Are you
threatening me? Why are you screaming at me?  Am I in the wrong Court?

 Any question such as:  Is there an X on this cup?  You might say yes, as I
know the truth to be at this time.  There are three views of the truth:
yours, theirs, and the truth.

     90% of all convictions come out of the mouth of the accused.

     Framing the question is more important that the answer. Do you have a
telephone number?  NO, it belongs to the telephone company.  Do you have a
Social Security Number?  There is a number that the government has on its
rolls that it is assigned to me.

 Under the 9th Amendment God gave us the right to motion or locomotion. When
you move on a public road, you are traveling.  Do you have a drivers license?
Should I?  It depends.

 The lady justice can see or hear no fiction.  That is why she is blindfolded
etc.  She can only weigh the injustices of an injury.

 A Congressman is a fictional creation under Legislative. A Judge is a fiction
under the Judicial. Who said that these fictions have immunity?  Everyone has
an immunity except WE THE PEOPLE.  Is this fair?  Yes, Because we created it
and gave them the responsibity.  However, they go beyond their responsibility
and pass private laws.

 Question everything the Judge says. Judge, are you part of the defense of the
accusers?  Someone has to move the Court, and the injured party is the one who
moves the Court.

 When they ask on or about, ask them which is it, on or about?

 The perverably "IF" questions -- You must answer referring back to the IF
else you are testifying.  Sometimes attorneys will make up scenarios using IF.
IF let us say you were driving on the 22 of Feb & IF a person crossed in front
of you and IF you ran over the person, would it not be considered vehicle
homicide?  You can say:  Since we are in the land of fiction, because it's
your story, I don't know.

 Is this your signature?  You know, I can't say for certain that it is.  They
will ask why?  Well, it could be a masterful forgery.  When they bring in an
expert on signatures, ask him if he is the injured party. FOOLISH SUGGESTION:
Have 3 or 4 different signatures; one for contracts and money instruments, one
for letters and one for receipts of anything such as UPS. No investigator ever
asks you how many signatures you have.  If they have your signature, you will
know what document they got it from.  These are some steps to protect
yourself.

 A Grand Jury is made up of 23 people that represents the country.  (not the
county or your peers).  The accused should ask the foreman who is the injured
party.  If they say Mr. H. then you become the mover of the Grand Jury. The
accused asks the accuser....How have I injured you?  Put your injury on the
table so that 23 people can see the injury.  Did you pay in lawful money?
What proof do you have that I took your_________?     We all have the right to
face our accuser.  You need to establish exact proof.  Is the loss of money an
injury?  NO  Because it is a fiction.  You have to attach the fiction to real
property.  The injury is the result of not having money.  Federal Reserve
Notes are just a discharge of debt.

 If there is no injured party, you have no alternative but to hand him a no
bill.  If he was injured,and there is probable cause that this person did it,
then they must draft up a bill of indictment and take it to the State Attorney
General. The Attorney General is an officer in the executive-- To get a
Subponea Duces Tecum is an instrument of the judicial-- The Grand Jury is
between them both and under the Sheriff's department-- Where in God's name
does it say the separation of powers between the executive using a judicial
instrument can be violated at will?  When you make this known, it is
impossible to give information to a Grand Jury.

  A higher matter before the Courts between civil and criminal is CIVIL.
Always go for the Writ of Habeas Corpus Article 1 Section 9 of the United
States Constitution.  The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended except
in times of National Emergency. We do have a National Emergency now, because
we have no legal government...

 There are two types of Notices in Court:  A Judicial Notice and a Private
Notice.  To convene the Court, the Judge needs a Judicial Notice.  The Judge
cannot act on a private notice. When the Judge asks for your name -- Doesn't
the injured party have to make the identification?

 Do not allow hearsay evidence.

 If they say, Answer the question or go to jail, try: If I answer the
question, can I go home?

 Never argue a fact.  Just hold to the law. What jurisdiction do you have over
me? Who is the injured party? How can anything other than a person have an
injury? Who is the Corporation? Don't get angry, don't argue, don't answer,
just ask questions--- Judge, why are you yelling? Judge, are you yelling
because you can't produce an injured person? You have stopped them from their
game, you have asserted your rights & you have done it with authority. Always
ask questions to stay out of their Jurisdiction.

 The IRS is trying to file liens on personal property.  Most of these liens
are A NOTICE of lien.  The Courts today cannot give any relief on these liens.
This implies a creditor/debtor/debtor relationship.  The IRS is trying to
collect a private debt.  Because, only Congress has a right to levy and
collect taxes. There is nothing on the UCC 1 or UCC 3.  The debt doesn't
exist.

 If you think you are going to be held in Contempt of Court, the first thing
you need to give someone power of attorney at all times. Do it before any
court.  Have it signed by two witnesses.  It allows someone to get in & out of
Court any time. IT COULD INCLUDE THE STATEMENT that you don't believe in
lawyers because there is a 1953-54 review of the American Bar Association
saying that if the attorney has been apprised that his client did commit any
crime, he must turn that evidence in to the state authorities, and you believe
this is a violation of the contract right with the privileged licensed
attorney, and you now want X Jones to be your counsel.

 We must learn to protect ourselves.  We must remove ourselves from any bank
(checking - credit cards) because everything is a paper trail.  You can tell a
person's life style by going through their checking accounts.  They can put
your whole life together just by going through your checks.  Under the
auspicious of the United States Dept of Treasury is in fine print of every
card that you sign for a checking account, etc.  that means every Governmental
Agency can get that information by subponea at any time.  Why do you want to
give up any of your private privileges?  Your right to privacy has been
violated. TRW has credit files on everyone.  For $1.00 you can get a credit
profile on any one.

 Try recycling checks.  When you get a check from someone --- just put on the
back make payable to say the phone company ---- tell them to keep anything
over for next months bill.

 John told about a doctor that sued him for $1500.00 medical bill.  He went to
him to negotiate and said, Doc, you have to be making over 100,000 a year. On
$1500.00 your taxes will be $750+. I want to pay your bill, but I can only
afford to pay you 500 in cash.   Did he take it?  Like a fly on a pork chop...
NEGOTIATE; THAT WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.  John also buys money orders and put
someone's else name on it.  As long as there is an account number on it, they
don't care who pays your bill. [The most famous example is the money orders
that circulate "From God With Love".]

 HINKLEY was never convicted of an assassination attempt because he denied
that he knew what it meant.  "I don't understand the charges of
assassination." You can only be convicted of a crime when you tell them with
your own mouth that you understand the charges -- until that time they
couldn't nail Hinkley.  So what did they do with him?    Put him in the shrink
house.

 How many of you have mortgages?   John said he had 6 at one time--- doesn't
have any now.  We all did at one time. If you can grasp the next concept, you
are going to say why was I such a fool.

 $100 x 10 = $1000. I borrow $1000 and I'm going to pay you back $100 for 10
months.  There was a contract signed, this is a note.  There is a second
document you must sign when you take the $1000 to buy a house, and it's called
a mortgage.  Now in the 3rd month, you stop paying the bank.  Next you get a
letter saying you defaulted on the mortgage.  But you have never defaulted on
the mortgage.  You have never altered the terms of that agreement--- they can
still have the house.  I've never rescinded the agreement or changed it.  But
the bank will tell you that you have defaulted of the mortgage,  but what you
have really defaulted on is the NOTE.  Why do they not say  you have defaulted
on the note?  Because they want the house - it has VALUE.

 A simple normal mortgage has gotten a little more complicated since 1972,
because the banks have pooled their money and sent it up the FHA in the form
of Genny Mays, Fanny Mays, or Freddy Macs or in any form to a Federal Land
Home Credit Bank--so let us call it FHA which is the daddy of them all.  The
agreement is you pass up the line to the bank.  The banks packages it in, say,
a Ginney May and sends them out to the investing public in $25,000.00
increments.  You can buy a Ginney May on Wall Street.  Banks sell your NOTE up
the line to a 2nd bank who sells it up to a 3rd etc.  So when you pay your
payment:  the first bank takes 2% passes it on to the next, they take 1%, and
pass it on to the next who takes 1% and passes it on. This continues until it
gets to the holder in due course.  This is called a "PASS THROUGH".

 So now I have stopped paying on the NOTE.  Who can sue you? Remember you did
not default, you breached the NOTE.  The only one who can sue you is the
holder in due course.  The holder in due course in this case is the holder of
the Ginney May...the investing public... not the first bank you took out the
loan with.  Therefore, the first bank cannot sue you on your NOTE because they
are just the servicing agent. The first bank can't move on your mortgage
either. They can't even declare that the note is in default, because they are
not the ultimate potential injured party. The only one that can sue is the
injured party.  The first bank forfeited his right when they sold the note.
(How can you prove this?)

 The attorney for the bank will push for foreclosure of the mortgage or
property, because the property is located in the state of Nebraska.  Where is
the attorney licensed?  In the State of ________.  The note that went up to
the Federal Government can only be tried by a U.S. Attorney in Federal Court.
(WE HAVE BEEN DECEIVED)....

 The Federal Reserve Act that allows banking is not a state issue, but a
Federal issue.  It doesn't matter if the 1st bank kept the note---- it can
only be tried in Federal Court.  The only Court that can handle the mortgage
is the State Court.  So what you do is BIFRUCATE the suit.  So Mr. Attorney,
this Court can't move on the note and I'm going to prove it to you.... "Does
your client, the bank, belong to the FDIC?" Are the banking laws a State
issue?  Case closed. LET US WALK IT THROUGH A LITTLE FURTHER...

 They want you to agree by waiving your rights to the Federal Court to handle
it all in the State Court.  Why?  an attorney in the State of __________ has
no immunity in the Federal Court, he is naked. Now let's complicate this
further....Can the Ginney May sue you since they are the holder in due course?
The only place the Feds can sue you is in Federal Court; however,in the book
of rules and regulations, it says that the Federal Government can own no land.
It is not in the land owning business unless the land was seceded to it.  So
what if they are successful in a suit against you? They can't own land and
resell it, because you never seceded it to them.  The Federal Government
doesn't have jurisdiction.  They would violate their charter and the
Constitution from the start. And you say to them (this is when I want hearsay
evidence) Put it on the record.. go ahead guys.. put it on the record, because
I want the state attorney to say he is participating in treason.

     Who can really sue?   The HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. The minute you get the
first letter from the bank you start to CHALLENGE. Under the UCC.. DEFAULT is
undefined....it says it is what the parties agree to.  Who is bound by the
UCC?  It is the Merchants --- the bank--- not us.  Do you see any
ramifications?

 When you get the first letter or you are in foreclosure proceedings --now
--write to them and say---:  It has come to my attention that I need a copy of
the contract that you say I allegedly signed.  Please mail it to me at your
earliest convenience along with a statement about who the holder in due course
is.   AND after 7 letters you do not get the information..... write the State
Attorney General's Office.  Sir, I need to know who is the holder in due
course is on this note and my friendly bank will not give me this
information,....etc. One side they are accusing you of fraud, the next time
they are helping --- so use them.

 So now you can say:  "Gentlemen:  I am not questioning the mortgage,  mail it
back to me, unless you can prove that you are the holder in due course within
the next 30; days.  Please release the mortgage for I hold you for full value
of that mortgage. With reservations ---etc."  Do you realize how powerful you
are as an individual and how limited they are?

 When an attorney says you are in default:  You say Sir: Can I enjoin you in
the suit, too?  Who is your bonding company? When we go after them, we go
after the local bar association, the state bar association, and the American
bar association---- However, the American bar association does not have any
address.

 PRIVATE DEBT:  You pay your bill and they claim they never got your check. So
they write back and charge you $10.00 overcharge. That $10.00 is a private
debt.  You haven't contracted for that. Now, what I can do....Ask them what
they want, a copy of the front and back of the check, a copy of the receipt
--etc. Now, what you say:  Let's see that is about 3 items at $150.00 a piece.
I charge $50.00 an hour.  You send me your payment of $350.00 and I'll get you
this information.  Why would you work for them for nothing.  Usually, tell
them that you are really busy right now and it will cost you to have someone
dig out the information.  However, I will be happy to do if you send me the
fee. Guaranteed, they won't bother you again.  If you don't do this, you wave
your rights to them.

 BIFURCATE your suit.  Move the suit to Federal Court.  That is good for about
5 years.  At which time you will be paying no mortgage payments and who pays
the taxes?  The holder in due course.  When it is settled, do you have to pay
the taxes?  NO.  Now you have an injury.. HOW? You have clouded my title. Not
the title to the property, but my personal title. You will start being accused
of being outside of the law and the funny thing is you can't be moved on
because you're acting lawfully, unlike most everyone else.

 Only a State Court can handle or adjudicate a matter of property. A State
bank is using Federal Instruments and that is why they must go under Federal
Jurisdiction.  No state attorney in his right mind will want to step into
Federal Court.  A State attorney is not licensed by the state to practice law.
He is certified by the State Bar Association.

 The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is the only one who can license
its own.  The Judicial is another branch of government.  The power to license
is the power to destroy so the Executive can never license the Judicial.  If
they tell you that they are licensed say, You better show me, because if you
are, then we have sedition going on.

 QUESTION:  What does it mean when the Federal Land Bank says we don't have a
private right against them?  Well if you don't have an action against them --
do they have an action against you?  YES  How can that be?  You always have to
have an action with an alternative.  You can't be put in a position without an
alternative, because God has given you an alternative every single time.  You
have an alternative to follow him or not, and if He gives you an alternative,
fiction has to give you an alternative.  Make them prove their point.  Who can
say that I don't have private right action against them?  Why are you doing
this to me?  How have I hurt you?

 If you feel entrapment coming when on the stand.... Turn to the judge and
ask.  Is this a trick question?   He will say I can't give you counsel.  You
now say:  I'm holding you now as my surety that I don't get myself into a
criminal jurisdiction.  What is he going to do?  They will have to strike the
whole line of questioning from the record.

 Two phrases you need to be able to cut through are "Not to my knowledge" and
"I don't recall". In the case where a banker was on the stand and that was all
he said, the guy questioning couldn't get anything out of him, John said: Mr.
Banker, Are you a banker? YES  Do you recall the conversation? NO  Do you
recall the contract? YES  But you don't recall remembering?  NO  Do you
remember the statement you made that the bank stole money from me? NO  Oh, are
you recalling something?  Do you also recall that I said that I have a good
suit against the bank if I play my cards right?

 If you have some one on the stand that keeps saying they don't recall, have
some fun. Do you recall when you said that the Judge's wife wears combat
boots?  Do you recall when you said that your bank is so big, this judge is on
your payroll?  Do you recall when you said this attorney will jump as high as
your bank wants him to?


--

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----