Welcome to the eleventh installment of the Frog Farm. This issue contains: 1) The Hacker Community Wises Up (reprinted from DnA Volume 1, #4) 2) State Legal Citation Systems and Standards 3) Headlines (reprinted from FACE Newsletter September 1993) 4) More from the Vault: The Frog Farm Archives 5) Public Servant's Questionaire 6) Administrivia (and SUBMISSIONS!) ** [This originally appeared in DnA ("Death 'n Anarchy"), Volume 1, Issue 4. I'm glad to see that my suspicions have been confirmed: I always knew that hackers were just the sort of people to become interested in "hacking the law", as it were. Now if we can convince them to reject nihilism, and extend the concept of property rights to the intellectual, non-tangible realms, we'll have a powerful "new generation" spearheading as pro se in court. My biggest fear is that they'll be too eager, and rush in too fast as I did in the beginning, without having taken the steps necessary to make themselves judgment proof. This is dangerous for two reasons. First of all, it makes bad precedent, both legally and in the eyes of "our enemy, the State". Secondly, if these kids go rushing headlong into court and end up losing big, it could cause them to reject the entire concept of freedom, come to the conclusion that sovereignty is just a crock of shit, and become even more cynical and nihilistic than they already are. But the dam has been breached; the meme is being kept alive, the information preserved. The first section here is a "readme" sort of thing; the second, longer one is the actual article.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -= The Sixth Column =- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Column Update #3 ---------------- By: Lestat De Lioncourt Whew! It has been an extremely busy month for the Column and its members. Things are progressing better than we ever imagined. The response that we have been getting is in a word, phenomenal. I'd like to thank all those who have been helping out since the beginning and who have taken time out of their personal lives to assist in our endeavors. This could very well be the most explosive issue of DnA ever. Even though Sixth Column has only appeared twice before, the information you are about to read is in a word "incredible". In this installment we have included two .GIFs that are copies of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents. Please see the file that corresponds to the GIFs for further information. DnA / Sixth Column Go Global! ------------------ In the past few months there has been an enormous response to the information we have made available. Many sysops from around the globe are requesting to be linked up with DnANet and ColumNet. More information on this will be coming in the next issue. If you can't wait that long, call DnA Systems and leave e-mail for the sysop requesting more information. DnA / Sixth Column Proudly Announce The Online Information Ordering System -------------------------------------- We have been toying around with the idea of putting up an online system for users to order information literature through DnA Systems. Items available for ordering will include: books, audio and video tapes, and other goodies. All will be available at below retail value. DnA Systems will take NO profit in this venture. Shipping and Handling + Cost = item price. Only money orders will be accepted. There has been some discussion concerning the privacy of user's name and addresses. We have decided to allow users who wish to keep their address/names/orders completely private, to use PGPed messages to order their items. Only one person will be responsible for handling orders, and will have a special PGP key for this purpose. It will be available on the system shortly. We will be putting up a catalog of items shortly. Be sure to check it out. More information will be available shortly on this, or call DnA Systems for instant updates. Incredible News of the Month ---------------------------- When I began to delve into the fraud of the Infernal Rape Service (IRS), I began by reading a series of books written by Irwin Schiff. His writings are based on legal facts. [FrogNote: So's your average TV movie of the week... ;) Seriously, despite some of the unbelievable stupid crap he's written about Jews, his economic and legal stuff is right on.] He has written several books such as: o The Federal Mafia o The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You o The Social Security Scam o The Great Income Tax Hoax o How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes o The Kingdom of Moltz o and others [Yeah, some of these 'others' were discussed briefly in alt.conspiracy] He was UNLAWFULLY put in phederal prison because he stopped "volunteering" for the phederal income tax (tribute). I have read the court transcripts of the case and it doesn't take a genius to see the fraud and cover-up committed by the IRS, US Attorney, and the Federal Judge. Irwin Schiff was to be released from federal prison in December of 1993, however it has been discovered that he was released early! He will be touring the country immediately, doing seminars, speaking on radio addresses, tv and cable interviews. During September he will be in California, and then the fun begins. [Sounds great! Try to hook up with his tour if it hits your town!] I have already been in contact with Irwin Schiff. We will be meeting with him personally when he arrives. [Oh my gosh.. 13th generation cyberculture meets who-only-knows-what-exactly... Will either side be prepared?] He has recently bought a modem and is curious about the implications of CyberSpace. (If he only knew) [You can say that again... Okay, I'll quit now. Anything you see in brackets after this point is Schiff's own comments.] I have not received any information as to his current schedule. I will post his dates/locations/times the moment I get them on DnA Systems. Information will probably be available in mid-September. I recommend that if you have the opportunity, go to his seminar and listen to him. You will be amazed! His books will be available for ordering as soon as we work out a few details. Sixth Column File Section Expanding ---------------------- In the past six to seven months since the birth of the Column, our file section has been expanding on a daily basis. Not including the H/P side of DnA Systems, we now house over 1,500 files of information not readily available to the average citizen. Users from all over the country have been downloading hundreds of files on a weekly basis. Some even batch the entire section and d/l 24 megs at once. I personally have been bombarded with e-mail by people who wish to thank us for the opportunity to access this information and provide it to the people in CyberSpace. Since the beginning, DnA Systems has maintained that all information should be free. To this end, there are NO RATIOS for file access. I'm glad to see that many, many people are taking advantage of this. If anyone knows where we can get an electronic copy of Clinton's New Tax and Spend Package, please let us know. We have been searching for it but haven't found anything yet. If you have any information, please call DnA Systems and leave me e-mail. New Article Column Added "The Cult of the Black Robe" ---------------------------- We've been toying around with the idea of putting a month by month column concerning the unconstitutional acts of judges, U.S. Attorneys, Lawyers, etc. Our premier article is quite a shocker. We want to give all who read this magazine the opportunity to add their stories to this section. If you have been screwed, or are being screwed in an unconstitutional manner, we would like to hear about it and publish it in the next issue of DnA. ALL articles will be considered, we do not censor for subject matter. Please put as many facts/dates/etc as possible. Please send your article to Lestat De Lioncourt at DnA Systems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -= The Sixth Column =- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Federal Court Indirectly Proves No Law Requires A Person To File/Pay the Federal Income Tax ------------------------------------ What you are about to read is excerpted from Irwin Schiff's book "The Federal Mafia". Please take careful note of how the Federal Magistrate Judge (court clerk) desperately tries to trick Schiff into giving the court jurisdiction in the case. This article might be a little long, but please take some time to read it, it will shock you. <> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Proof that no "liability" for income taxes exists anywhere in the internal revenue code While I stated in The Great Income Tax Hoax that no section of the Code made anyone liable for income taxes, I was asking my readers to take my word for it - or to check the Code out for themselves. But now, thanks to my latest criminal prosecution and to my two civil law suits, my readers won't have to do either. As a result of that litigation, the government has supplied me with all the information that anybody should need. A U.S. Arraignment - Nazi Style On April 5, 1985, while on a media tour to promote my recently released book, The Great Income Tax Hoax, three IRS agents pounced upon me as I was about to enter the studios of radio station KFBK, Sacramento, California, for a scheduled talk show appearance. They pinned me against the wall, handcuffed and arrested me. They all carried concealed pistols, which they were not authorized to carry (per section 7608) except in connection with the "enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms." But what does violating one more law mean to the IRS? I was subsequently released on bond, and on April 17, I appeared for arraignment before Magistrate Owen Eagan in Connecticut Federal District Court in Hartford. The government had charged me with three counts of tax evasion for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and one count of failing to file a corporate tax return for 1980. However, on April 8th, approximately 10 days prior to my arraignment, I submitted a written motion to the court asking it to dismiss the indictment due to the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I supported this motion with two memorandums of law. One memorandum cited sufficient case law to remind the court of two things it already knew, (1) that whenever a federal court's jurisdiction is challenged the party invoking its jurisdiction (in this case the federal government) must prove it by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) that a federal court's jurisdiction can never be assumed by the court. The two short excepts from two of the cases in my Memorandum of Law illustrate this: Jurisdiction cannot be assumed by a District Court nor conferred by agreement of the parties, but it is incumbent upon plaintiff to allege in clear terms, the necessary facts showing jurisdiction which must be proved by convincing evidence. -Harris v. American Legion, 162 F. Supp. 700 The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure. If his allegation of jurisdictional facts ARE CHALLENGED BY HIS ADVERSARY in any appropriate manner, HE MUST SUPPORT THEM BY COMPETENT PROOF. And where they are not so challenged, the court may still insist that the jurisdictional fats be established or the case dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. [emphasis added] -The Supreme Court McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance, 56 S. Ct. 780 There is ample case law to support this principle that once jurisdiction is challenged the court hs no authority to do anything but take action on that motion. As the Supreme Court held in The Statute of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 709 once the question of jurisdiction is raised "it must be CONSIDERED AND DECIDED, before any court can move one step further." With this in mind let us see how a Connecticut District Court dealt with this issue in my case. My motion claimed that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try me for alleged income tax crimes because: 1. The indictment failed to identify the statute that required the filing of a corporate income tax return, and thus failed "to state a charge cognizable in the courts of the United States." 2. "No section of the Internal Revenue Code (erroneously referred to in my indictment as 26 USC 7201 and 7203) makes individuals liable for the payment of income taxes" and so I was not required to file a return or pay the tax purely as a matter of law. 3. "Section 7402 specifically grants civil jurisdiction only." I pointed out to the court that it was never given jurisdiction by Congress to conduct a criminal tax trial, because "Title 26" only conferred civil, not criminal jurisdiction on federal courts. What could be plainer than that! 4. The court had no jurisdiction to prosecute me (either for evasion or for not filing) for a tax which was not imposed pursuant to any of the taxing clauses in the Constitution. That since the income tax was imposed neither as "a uniform excise tax in accordance with Article I, Sec 8, Clause 1 nor as an apportioned direct tax pursuant to Article 1, Sect 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Sect 9, Clause 4," a criminal prosecution pursuant to such a tax would be manifestly unconstitutional. I supplied the court with an eighteen page Memorandum of Law just to support that last contention. Government Fails To Respond In total violation of the principle explained in the three cases cited above, both the prosecution and the courts paid absolutely no attention to my jurisdictional claim - as shown by the following excerpts from the arraignment tape that was supplied to me by the court. Magistrate Eagan: It is my understanding this morning that we were taking the criminal docket. The first matter will be criminal number N-85-20. This is a case that is assigned to the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey for trial. It is the matter of the United States of America vs. Irwin A. Schiff. Is that correct? M. Hartmere, Asst. U.S. Attorney: That's correct, your Honor. Eagan: And this matter is here on indictment? Hartmere: yes, it is your Honor. Eagan: And has a copy of this indictment been given to Mr. Schiff? Hartmere: Yes, your Honor I believe he has been provided with a copy. Eagan: All right, fine... Schiff: Your Honor, I submitted last Monday to this court and to the U.S. Attorney, a Motion to Dismiss the indictment on four grounds of lack of jurisdiction. So far the government hasn't responded to that motion. Therefore, I move for a summary judgement on the grounds that since I filed a motion that this court has no jurisdiction, because the income tax falls into none of the taxing clauses of the Constitution, and because I have no liability for the tax; and since the government hasn't responded to the contrary, I move that the procedure here be dismissed. However, if the government wants more time to respond, I'll agree to giving it a continuance. Eagan: All right, Mr. Schiff, if you'll excuse me, we'll be seated for a minute. I'll go through the whole procedure with you and I'll explain it to you. [He totally ignores the jurisdictional issue I raised in my written motion, and which I just orally re-urged.] Schiff: Well before we can proceed, your Honor, I think what we have to ESTABLISH is whether or not you have ANY JURISDICTION TO PROCEED. Now, it's very simple. I have in front of me Section 7402 and it very clearly says, "For general jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in CIVIL actions involving internal revenue, see section 1340 or Title 28 of the United States Code." Now if I can show the court where it has CIVIL jurisdiction, I think it's appropriate for the government to show the court where it has criminal jurisdiction... Eagan: All right, Mr. Schiff, if you'll sit down for just a second please. Mr. Schiff this is a preliminary hearing, this is not a trial of the matter nor am I here to hear motions addressed to jurisdiction. I will give you sufficient time to address your motion to the trial judge and he will be the one...Mr. Schiff, please... [Eagan again totally ignores my claim that the court lacks jurisdiction to continue, even though the government has yet to utter a single word in its own behalf. If Eagan had no authority to address this issue, then he should have re-scheduled it before someone who did. But my written motion was submitted to the court days before my "arraignment," so the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey obviously knew that it had to be held before someone who could deal with the subject. The reason that the court CHOSE THIS METHOD TO AVOID DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE, will soon become apparent. But let's continue with my "arraignment."] Schiff: Your Honor, are you going to ask me to plead? Eagan: Yes, I am. Schiff: You'll be asking me to plead to a legal fiction...to plead to something that's not a crime...Suppose Michael Hartmere indicted me for eating a banana, would you expect me to plead guilty or not guilty to that? And if I pleaded not guilty, would I not be suggesting that I believed that eating a banana was a crime? Before we continue... Eagan: No, before we continue you will sit down and you will listen to my explanation of what we are doing. Please be seated, Mr. Schiff. [The court and the prosecutor (actually, in this case, one in the same) were conspiring against me to plead to a legal fiction so that the United States could illegally prosecute me. For example, suppose that Michael Hartmere, the U.s. prosecutor who fraudulently engineered my indictment, was similarly able to pull the wool over the grand jury's eyes and get it to indict me for having eaten a banana. Suppose further, that I had never eaten a banana in my life. Would that mean that because of that fact at any subsequent arraignment, I should simply plead not guilty, or that I could be "required" to EVEN ENTER A PLEA for that "crime"? Why should I needlessly have to defend myself (which takes both time and money) from charges that I was guilty of doing something that I didn't do, but which was not a crime anyway? By pleading "not guilty," one also subjects himself to the authority of (and in this case a hostile one) a federal judge who, once he has you in his clutches, (ie. become subject to his "jurisdiction") can exercise arbitrary and awesome power over you. He can establish unrealistic bail requirements, decide that you should be confined right through your trial and keep you in jail - WITHOUT A TRIAL - by holding you in continuous contempt of court. And once you are under the court's jurisdiction (which we can only occur after you submit to its jurisdiction by refusing to challenge it [and possibly prevailing] by simply entering a standard plea) you can indeed be found guilty of something you never did and which is not even a crime. This can occur because once the court assumes jurisdiction, it is in a position to make false rulings on matters of law (in which defendants are also denied oral argument) and falsely charge the jury on the law itself - which occurs all the time in tax cases. In addition, the prosecutor can totally fabricate its prosecution by using perjurous testimony - a perfectly routine procedure in all "tax protestor" cases. To put it in the context of my banana example (though a better illustration might be, being accused of speaking ill of the President), once you plead not guilty to eating a banana, the government is now in a position to get witnesses to falsely testify that you did, while the court is now in a position to falsely instruct the jury that eating a banana is a crime. Since a jury is made up of individuals who generally know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT TAX LAW, they can be made to believe anything the "judge" decides to tell them. So, in case you thought my banana illustration was a little far fetched, this is PRECISELY what happens in all "tax protestor" cases. Such people are all tricked at their arraignments, and then fraudulently prosecuted for doing something that is no more illegal than eating a banana. But let's leave the subject of bananas and get back to my "arraignment."] Eagan: Now, before we continue you will sit down and you will listen to my explanation of what we are doing. Please be seated Mr. Schiff. Schiff: Well, I think that jurisdiction has to be established your Honor... Eagan: All right... Schiff: And I think the record ought to show... Eagan: The record is going to show everything that should be shown. Mr. Schiff, my name is Owen Eagan. I am the United States magistrate. I am here for the preliminary purposes of taking a plea in this case. Schiff: May I just ask is this an adversary... Eagan: You may shut up for just a second and let me finish. I'm here to take a plea to this particular case. The only plea that I can and will accept is a plea of not guilty. [In the above exchange I sought to get Eagan to admit that an arraignment is an adversary proceeding between me and the government, with the court merely "judging" between us, based upon the legal arguments we make. I had already made (and legally supported) an argument that the court had no jurisdiction - which ALSO INCLUDED EAGAN'S AUTHORITY TO ARRAIGN ME! Obviously, that authority had to be established before Eagan could utter ONE ARRAIGNMENT WORD! The court was thus duty bound to hear contrary arguments from my adversary (the government) and to render its decision accordingly. But it is clear from the arraignment tape (as my trial itself would prove) that my adversary WAS ALSO THE COURT! Note Eagan's comment that he was only there to take "a plea of not guilty." But the court was on notice that I intended to argue jurisdiction. So why wasn't it prepared to hear it? But you already know the answer to that. So the court concocted a ruse to avoid addressing the issue as the law required it to do.] Continuing with the "arraignment"... Schiff: I'm perfectly willing to plead guilty. I will plead guilty. Can I plead guilty? Eagan: No, you may not. Schiff: Why can't I? Eagan: Because I have no authority to take a guilty plea. Schiff: Well then let's get a judge in here who can accept a guilty plea. Eagan: Mr. Schiff, please sit down at this time...please. Schiff: I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO PLEAD GUILTY TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES AND MYSELF THE EXPENSE OF THE TRIAL. I ADMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT I HAVEN'T FILED AND I HAVEN'T PAID, AND IF I HAVE A TAX LIABILITY AND IF MR HARTMERE WILL SHOW THIS COURT WHERE I CAN HAVE A TAX LIABILITY (AS A MATTER OF LAW) I'M PREPARED TO PLEAD GUILTY. Eagan: All right, now I've given you your opportunity to talk so you please sit down and listen... Schiff: But I'm prepared to plead guilty. [Can you believe that this is actually happening in an American court?] Eagan: Please sit down. [Suppose I had been charged with murder, rape, bank robbery, counterfeiting, arson, mail fraud or any other crime you can think of and I asked the court, "Look, just show me the law which makes what I'm charged with a crime, and I'll plead guilty." Don't you think that under those circumstances any LEGITIMATE court would have produced the law? In my case, "the law" was the Code section that made me "liable" for the tax. Yet neither the government nor the court COULD or would produce the law!!!] Eagan (continuing): It's my obligation today to take a plea to an indictment that was handed down by a grand jury on April 3 of this year in New Haven. The only authority I have is the authority to accept a plea of not guilty...and that is the only authority I have. My other OBLIGATIONS ARE TO MAKE SURE that you get a copy of the charging documents; THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CHARGE IS; and you understand what the maximum penalty might be. Now the way that I accomplish this is to have the U.S. Attorney explain to you and to me what the charges are and what the maximum possible penalty is. After that, I must advise you of what your rights are. [But apparently not of my right to be tried only by a court that has jurisdiction] [Additional explanation followed in which Eagan explained that he would cover such things as: the Speedy Trial Act, the filing of pre-trial motions, my competency to stand trial, whether I had an attorney, and whether he had any conflict of interest. Following that, I again asked of the court...] Schiff: Is this an adversary or inquisitory proceeding? Eagen: Well, the procedure is a preliminary procedure in a criminal process. All criminal process is adversary in nature. Schiff: Well, who is my adversary in this courtroom, your Honor? Eagan: Your adversary is the United States government. Schiff: Is that Mr. Hartmere? Eagan: Hartmere is only an agent of the government. He is not your adversary. Schiff: But he represents my adversary, is that correct? Eagan: He represents the government. Schiff: Therefore, I assume that if I raise an issue, before you can judge, my adversary would have to respond? Eagan: No, that's not so. Dispositive motions - and that's what you are talking about, have a time and a place. [I hadn't the vaguest idea what he meant by a "dispositive motion" But I knew that Eagan wasn't telling the truth about the issue of jurisdiction which I knew was validly before the court.] Once the plea is entered, dispositive motions may be filed and they will be addressed to the trial judge. Schiff: If you are telling me that you can only take a not guilty plea, I could have mailed it on a postcard. Eagan: No, the rules require that a personal appearance...Rule 10... Schiff: Why? Eagan: That's the way Congress deems it legal. Schiff: But this is supposed to be my hearing, isn't that right? It's not a court martial? Eagan: This is a preliminary hearing for the purpose of taking a not guilty plea. Schiff: But it's also a hearing to see if you have the jurisdiction to take a plea. Eagan: There's no question in my mind whether I have jurisdiction or not. I have jurisdiction. [So here the court, without any shame at all, openly violates a fundamental principle of federal law - it ASSUMES jurisdiction and without the plaintiff being asked to offer any comment at all (let alone assume its burden of proof) on the matter!] Schiff: Where do you have it from? Eagan: I don't think I have to sit here and explain it to you Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff, please sit down and we're going to go through the normal procedure... Schiff: Your Honor, the courts have ruled that when the issue of jurisdiction is raised...the jurisdiction facts must be established or the case dismissed..."Jurisdiction can not be assumed but must be clearly shown" Brooks v. Yalkie 200 F2d 663. Sir, you cannot assume jurisdiction. When I raise the issue of jurisdiction, the government (my adversary) must prove you have it. [So far the government, my adversary, hasn't uttered one word in opposition to my four claims, yet Eagan decided the matter in its favor! Talk about having a friend in court!] Eagan: For the preliminary purpose of this hearing I am denying your motion, if that's what you want. I have jurisdiction. I will proceed... Schiff: You haven't proven it. On what basis do you have it? Eagan: I don't have to prove anything to you, Mr. Schiff. Schiff: Your Honor, if I can prove that you have CIVIL jurisdiction pursuant to section 7402, why don't you simply ask Mr. Hartmere to tell you where you have CRIMINAL jurisdiction? ISN'T THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH? Eagan: I think I explained this to you before. The dispositive motions must go to the trial judge. The trial judge is the only one who can rule on... Schiff: Well, then let's get a judge in here. Eagan: Mr. Schiff, you are not running this court. We will run the court in the normal way that it has always been run, under the laws and under the Constitution of this country. [It's a good thing that Eagan pointed this out, otherwise no one would have guessed it!] Schiff: Your Honor, I wasn't... Eagan: Mr. Schiff, SIT DOWN! [This should give you a rough idea of how justice "works" in federal courts, as opposed to how it supposedly works in theory. It is clear that the court was willing to proceed even though it obviously knew it had no jurisdiction (otherwise the court and/or the prosecutor would have offered some proof) to do so.] My willingness to immediately plead guilty came up AGAIN as follows... Schiff: I am willing to plead guilty. Eagan: I don't want a guilty plea. Schiff: Why not? Eagan: Because I cannot accept a guilty plea. [Therefore, I should have insisted that, that was the plea I wanted to make. This would have forced a rescheduling of my arraignment before the judge. Then I could have undergone a change of heart and forced oral argument on each of the jurisdictional issues I raised. This is what Judge Dorsey wanted to avoid - oral argument. In that situation the government would have to support its baseless jurisdictional claims in open debate, where its reasoning could be challenged and where both its answers and the court's would be recorded. Judge Dorsey, for obvious reasons, wanted to make any jurisdictional claims and statements from within the safety of his own WRITTEN decision. By employing that technique, both his and the government's answers to my jurisdictional question wouldn't have to be DEFENDED IN OPEN COURT. By contract the court, by limiting its remarks and answers to its own written opinion, could with relative safety and impunity, base its decisions on arguments that were patently false, incomplete and invalidly supported.] Schiff: Well then let's get a judge in here who can accept a guilty plea. Why should I be put to the expense of a trial? I can't afford a trial. Eagan: Do you want to plead guilty? Schiff: I WILL PLEAD GUILTY, IF THE GOVERNMENT WILL ONLY SHOW ME WHERE THE CODE MAKES ME LIABLE FOR THE TAX. Eagan: NO. You don't want to plead guilty. What you want to do is argue. [Can you believe this?] Schiff: I don't want to argue. I'm perfectly willing to plead guilty. [Here, I further reminded the court, that none of the Code sections I was charged with violating even mention income taxes, and that the government had also refused to address that issue too.] Does Mr. Hartmere suggest that I am evading an alcohol tax? Eagan: Mr. Schiff, you are just back at the same thing all over again. Schiff: Well why don't you ask him where in the (Code I am required to file an income tax return and pay an income tax.) Eagan: No, I'm not going to ask him anything about that. And further on... Schiff: You want me to give jurisdiction to the court by entering a not guilty plea? Not guilty to what? Where's the crime? Eagan: Mr. Schiff, you're arguing the case. Schiff: I'm not arguing. Eagan: The proper place to argue that defense, is to Judge Dorsey and it's through a Motion to Dismiss (which I had already filed but which the court was now ignoring!) Let me get on with this. I will give you the dates where you can argue it and to whom you can argue it. [First of all, I wasn't "arguing" the case. I wasn't arguing whether I had filed tax returns or not, or whether I had paid the taxes or not (as a matter of fact I had already admitted to not doing either) or whether or not I "concealed" any income that would have been "arguing the case." I was only arguing the issue of jurisdiction, not the case." And an ARRAIGNMENT IS JUST THE PLACE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. Eagan's claim that I would have an opportunity to "argue it" later was another sham. Once the court got by the "arraignment" with its "magistrate" ploy, it refused to grant me oral argument on the issue as Eagan falsely claimed it would do. The reasons for this have already been explained.] Schiff: This is the proper place to argue jurisdiction. Eagan: This particular proceeding is not the proper place. [Eagan's statement was a blatant lie as my next statement and his response prove.] Schiff: Jurisdiction can be raised during any part of the judicial process. Eagan: You raised it. I've denied your Motion to Dismiss this case. [A moment before he instructed me to submit my Motion to Judge Dorsey. Now he denies the Motion he just told me to submit. And if Eagan only had the authority to accept a not guilty plea, (as he repeatedly claimed) then where did he get the authority to deny my Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction?] Schiff: Without hearing from my adversary? Eagan: Without hearing from your adversary. Schiff: Then this is not an adversary proceeding? Eagan: I don't need to hear from your adversary to know that I have jurisdiction to take your not guilty plea and send you on to Judge Dorsey for the trial to take place. Schiff: Is this a star chamber proceeding or is this an American court where I am supposed to have a hearing? Eagan: It is a courtroom where you will have a hearing. It is not a political podium for you to give addresses to the court. [Eagan's statements and admissions prove him to be wrong on all counts. This was no "courtroom." I was not to be given a "hearing" And his comment that I was turning his "courtroom" into a "political podium" was Freudian: reflective of his obvious understanding that my "trial" was really political in nature.] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- <> Well there you have it, another example of "star chamber" justice -federal style (or Nazi, have your pick). Remember that "Eagen" the Magistrate (court clerk) would not take a plea of "guilty"...why? Because they could not come up with a law that makes anyone liable for the tax. This is just another example of how the "Cult of the Black Robe" (as they are commonly referred to today) covers the IRS's proverbial ass. As stated before, "The Federal Mafia" and all other Schiff books will be available at "below retail" price through DnA Systems shortly. We will also make available, the court recording of the above exchange for those who are not easily convinced. [EOF] ** STATE LEGAL CITATION SYSTEMS: CITATION AUTHORITY EXPECTED TO BE USED IN THE HIGHEST APPELLATE STATE COURTS (Based on a 1985 survey of the highest appellate courts of each state. Revised by the author in March 1991) ALABAMA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. ALASKA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. ARIZONA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Formichi, Robert E. California style manual: a handbook of legal style for California courts and lawyers / by Robert E. Formichi. 3rd ed. Sacramento : Supreme Court of Calif.? ; North Highlands, CA : For sale by Dept. of General Services, Publications Section, c1986. This manual is written by the Reporter of Decisions of the California State Supreme Court, and is issued under approval of the State Supreme Court as a handbook of legal style for California courts and lawyers. COLORADO SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Harvard Bluebook. Uniform Citation Forms. approved for use in Colorado Supreme Court opinions 5/3/84 (amended 5/17/84) 2p. Lists deviations from the Harvard Bluebook for Colorado materials. CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only In-house style sheet which closely parallels, but does not follow in all instances, the Harvard Bluebook. DELAWARE SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Counsel only "[C]itations will be deemed to be in acceptable form if made in accordance with the 'Uniform System of Citation' ...." Delaware Supreme Court Rule, 14(g). This rule deviates from the Bluebook form in requiring that citations to state reporters should not be made where a National Reporter Citation exists. Judges only No citations to state reporters should be made where a National Reporter citation exists. Examples of unreported Delaware opinions and orders. Delaware Supreme Court Rule, 93(c). DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Citation Guidance Memorandum. revised December 1982, effective January 1, 1983. 6p. "Unless in conflict with anything in this memorandum, follow 'A Uniform System of Citation' ...." Citation Guidance Memorandum, sec. 1. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.800, gives examples of citations to Florida material, and to federal court reports. "All other citations shall be in the form prescribed by A Uniform System of Citations ...." Fla. R. App. P., 9.800(m). Additional citation authority Florida Style Manual, 19 Fl. St. U.L. Rev. 525 (1991). GEORGIA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Counsel only "Any enumerated error which is not supported by arguments or citation of authority in the brief shall be deemed abandoned. All citations of authority must be full and complete." Georgia Supreme Court Rules, 45. Additional citation authority Leah F. Chanin, Reference Guide to Georgia Legal History and Legal Research. Appendix V. Citation Forms. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980. (with 1983 supplement). HAWAII SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, 28(b)(1), requires that the Table of Authorities in briefs, contain citations to "both the official and the national reporter system." IDAHO SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Judges only Internal Rules of the Idaho Supreme Court, Rule 14(e), which gives variations from the Bluebook for Idaho materials, also says: "If not covered by rule or statute, citations shall be in conformity with the current edition of 'A Uniform System of Citation' ...." ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT Counsel only Illinois Supreme Court Rule, 341(d), prescribes pinpoint, official reporter, textbook and statute citations. Judges only Style Manual for Illinois and Appellate Courts. Bloomington: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 1981. 52p. INDIANA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, 8.2(B) "It is recommened that when briefs contain references to scholarly treatises, law journals, statutes, etc., citations should follow the form prescribed by the current edition of the Harvard Citator." Ind. R. App. P., 8.2(B)(2) IOWA SUPREME COURT Counsel only Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure, 14(e), prescribes pinpoint, official, unpublished opinion, text book and Code citations. Judges only Citation System and Format Guidebook. Des Moines, Iowa: Supreme Court, 1984. 42p. KANSAS SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Harvard Bluebook. Appellate Reporter's Office Citation Manual KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, 76.12(g) prescribes official reporter, and Revised Statute citations. LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Additional citation material Louisiana Law Review. Citation Form Addendum. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1983. 12p. (with 1p. amendment, dated June 27, 1983) MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Counsel and judges Michael D. Seitzinger & Charles K. Leadbetter, Uniform Maine Citations. Portland: Maine Law Review, 1983. v, 29p. Harvard Bluebook. MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Michigan Uniform System of Citations, adopted by the Supreme Court, October 4, 1971, Administrative Order No. 1971-3, 385 Mich. xxvi. Additional citation material Alterman, Plain and Accurate Style in Lawsuit Papers, 2 Cooley L. Rev. 243 (1984). John Doyle, Michigan Citation Manual. Buffalo, N.Y.: Wm. S. Hein, 1986. Rules of Citation. Proposed Michigan Court Rules, Subchapter 7.500, 402A Mich. 455 (1978). Florence M. Telling & Marilyn A. Estes, Michigan Uniform System of Citation. Rev. ed. Detroit: Legal Secretaries Association, 1982. MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Additional citation material Citation Manual. St. Paul: Minnesota Supreme Court, 1979. MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. MISSOURI SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Judges only Internal memorandum on citation form (9/17/79). 12p. Closely follows the Harvard Bluebook, but deviates in a few instances. MONTANA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT Counsel only Nebraksa Supreme Court Rule, 9C(4) - (6) Judges only Harvard Bluebook. NEVADA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT Counsel only Supreme Court Rule 16(9), prescribes the form for case citations. Judges only No expectation. NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Harvard Bluebook. Manual of Style. Rev. ed. Trenton, N.J.: Administrative Office of the Courts, 1979. 15p. NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT Counsel only "Any consistent method or form which adequately identifies the cited authority and aids the court may be used." Crim. App. R. 501(e). "All New Mexico decision shall be cited from the official reports, with parallel citations if available. Other decisions may be cited from either official or unofficial reports, parallel citations being desired so far as available to the counsel. Unofficial citations shall always identify the court rendering the decision." Civ. App. R. 9(j). Judges only Joseph E. Samora, A Comprehensive Manual for the Supreme Court of New Mexico and the New Mexico Court of Appeals. 2nd ed. Santa Fe: Supreme Court of New Mexico, 1984. This manual in turn mandates following the Harvard Bluebook, with a few minor variations which were suggested by West Publishing Company. NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS Counsel only CPLR 5529(e) prescribes the form for case citations. Judges only Official New York law reports style manual / prepared by the Law Reporting Bureau of the State of New York ; compiled and edited by Frederick A. Muller. -- Rochester, N.Y. : Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co., 1987. 59 p. (new edition expected summer 1992). Additional citation material New York Rules of Citation. Jamaica, N.Y.: St. John's Law Review, 1978. 32p. NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. OHIO SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Manual of the Forms of Citation Used in the Ohio Official Reports. Columbus: Supreme Court, 1985. 48p. Additional citation material Ohio Northern University Law Review. Style Manual. Ada: Ohio Northern University Law Review, 1979. ix, 80p. OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. OREGON SUPREME COURT Counsel only Harvard Bluebook. Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appendix G. Judges only Appellate Court Style Manual. Salem: Administrative Office of the Courts, 1984. 26p. PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual. Judges only In-house style sheet. SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook Judges only Internal memo follows the Harvard Bluebook but suggests variant citation forms according to guidelines from West Publishing Company. TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT Counsel only Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, 27(h) Judges only No expectation. Additional citation material Laska, Tennessee Rules of Citation, 12 Memphis State U.L. Rev. 547 (1982). TEXAS SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Texas Rules of Form. 7th ed. Austin: Texas Law Review, 1990. 62p. Additional citation material Greenhill, Uniform Citations for Briefs, 27 Texas B.J. 323 (1964). Texas Law Review Manual on Style. 6th ed. Austin: Texas Law Review, 1990. vii, 79p. UTAH SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. VERMONT SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Harvard Bluebook. VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges No expectation. WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook. Richard F. Jones, Washington Reports Style Manual. 4th ed. Olympia, WA: Supreme Court, 1982. 37p. WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges Harvard Bluebook WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT Counsel and judges "The Supreme Court has adopted the citation form in 'A Uniform System of Citations,' published by the Harvard Law Review, for all citations in opinions and orders of the Court. The one exception to this is that citations to Wisconsin Statutes will continue to be cited sec. 250.70, Stats., rather than the form prescribed by the uniform system. Attorneys who file briefs or memoranda with the Supreme Court are requested to follow the same citation form." Notice to Members of the Bar, 74 Wis. 2d xxxix (November 4, 1976). Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule, 80.02 prescribes the form for citing decisions of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court WYOMING SUPREME COURT Counsel only No expectation. Judges only Harvard Bluebook. by John Doyle. ** Assorted Headlines [These originally appeared in the September 1993 issue of FACE Newsletter (Fathers and Children for Equality).] Are Domestic Violence Suspects Being Treated Unfairly? By Jeff Long Franklin County Municipal Court is the only county court in Ohio that routinely denies misdemeanor domestic violence suspects bail, says a lawsuit filed this week. The suit contends this practice is inconsistent with Ohio law. Phillip Heer, who filed the suit in Ohio Supreme Court, says rule changes approved by Municipal Court judges in 1987 deny bail to suspects in domestic violence and other selected cases who should be eligible for immediate bond. "The court has decided to write its own law," Heer said. "It's costing people in terms of freedom. We have looked at every other municipal court in the state and we can find no similar rules. Essentially, they put you in jail and don't want to let you out despite what the Supreme Court says." Heer's suit challenges Franklin County rules that exclude domestic violence, menacing, stalking and prostitution from the bail schedule that applies to other misdemeanors. Heer believes the rules changes were spurred by a case in which a domestic violence suspect, out on bail, killed his wife. Heer first learned about the changes through personal experience. "In September of `91 someone convinced my wife to file domestic violence charges and my initial bail was denied -- since dismissed, all expunged," Heer said. "And she convinced the court I needed psychiatric help. I spent nine days in jail and 31 in a hospital. When I looked at the law, I realized it was illegal." Heer said the rule changes are out of line with what's permitted by the Ohio Revised Code. He produced minutes of a judges' meeting from August 1987 in which then-Municipal Court Judge Deborah Pryce suggested changing the bail schedule to exclude domestic violence "and treat it more like a felony for bond purposes only," the minutes said. Pryce is now a Congresswoman. "There is such a pattern of victim protection that they're ignoring the law," Heer said. "They're jailing people for one to three days when they should have immediate bail. You're presumed guilty when an attorney tells a wife, `Charge your husband with domestic violence, it will help your divorce case.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Women tend to be told, if they're getting divorced, `File domestic violence (charges) against your husband. It'll help you get custody'" of the children, Heer said. Source: _The Columbus Dispatch_, September 3, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Teresa Liston, administrative judge for the court, said she responded to earlier inquiries by Heer about the legality of the rules. "Mr. Heer is apparently not happy with our response," Liston said. "Mr. Heer is not an attorney. He has his own interpretation of what the rules are. It's been fully reviewed. The court is in full compliance with the law." (Editorial Comment: The key words in the above article are in the last paragraph. Judge Liston states, "Mr. Heer is not an attorney." If you go into a court or administrative office, you're often greeted by, "Are you an attorney?" It's as if there are two classes of citizens, attorneys and all you other people who waste the court's valuable time. It seems as though a law degree confers a higher class of citizenship.) [FrogNote: Perhaps this person might appreciate a gift subscription to the Frog Farm!] Source: _The Other Paper_, August 26, 1993 [...] The Lawyerless: More People Represent Themselves in Court, But Is Justice Served? By Junda Woo, Staff Reporter of _The Wall Street Journal_, Contributed by Rama Kalra Attorneys Get Too Expensive in Many Family Cases; Self-Helpers Clog the System -- The Arnie Becker Syndrome Dressed in a white T-shirt and flouncy miniskirt, Susan McHugo-Inouye looks flustered as she rises to speak. She hesitates and looks around for help like a junior-high-school student giving her first oral report. But this is no classroom, it is a courtroom, and the scene of a bitter child-custody dispute. Although Mrs. McHugo-Inouye appears to gain confidence part way through her presentation, her argument seems disturbingly disorganized and short on legal reasoning, especially compared with that of her opposing counsel. When he interrupts her to object, she clearly is thrown off balance. He summarizes the case in a memorandum to the judge; she does not. Two weeks later, the judge issues his decision. She loses. They are the lawyerless, and more and more of them are demonstrating their limited skills -- not to mention their casual dress -- in courtrooms across the country. Especially in family court, the numbers are exploding. In Des Moines, Iowa, 53% of all such cases feature litigants representing themselves. In Washington, D.C., the figure is 88%. As these hordes of nonlawyers stumble along, they clog systems that aren't designed to accommodate amateurs, creating a host of new challenges for court administrators. The lawyerless often aren't flying solo by choice. A family lawyer often can collect $10,000 for a complex case, a hefty chunk of it up front and nonrefundable. After the economy began to slow five years ago, the percentage of nonlawyers in such cases began increasing sharply. Meanwhile, divorce rates remain high. Lawyers haven't lowered their fees to lure back the lost business, either. Plenty of higher-income people still are getting divorced and paying hourly rates of $100 and higher. "Lawyers have priced themselves out of the middle-class market," says California Superior Court Judge Roderic Duncan, who wrote a book on navigating the state's municipal courts without an attorney. "They're not interested in that kind of work." This, of course, raises broader questions about obtaining justice. "A system that presupposes the existence of two represented parties is breaking down," contends Sara-Ann Determan, moderator of a sparsely attended panel on middle-class legal services at the recent American Bar Association convention. The head of a leading attorneys' group, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, is unapologetic. "I wish this were a world where, realistically, the poor could have the same justice as the people who aren't poor, but that's not the world," says Arthur E. Balbirer. "It's a shame. Justice sometimes is expensive." If you can't afford to pay, there are few alternatives. Legal-aid budgets are drained as it is, with legal-assistance groups routinely turning away all divorce and custody work. And private lawyers, despite much public horn-blowing about pro bono work, are showing no inclination to fill the void. Many attorneys consider family law emotionally draining and excessively time-consuming. In cases of serious injury, poor clients can get a lawyer by giving him or her a percentage of an ultimate damage award; but such fees aren't permitted in family law cases. So, few volunteers step forward. Says Mr. Balbirer: "It's like asking a corporate executive, `Why don't you, for two months, give your salary to the homeless?' Not to be a wise guy, but if we're going to say that, we should apply that standard down the line." Another reason some litigants shun lawyers might be called the Arnie Becker syndrome, after the unctuous attorney in TV's L.A. Law. Many are leery of slippery divorce lawyers -- with some justification. A 1992 study by the New York State Department of Consumer Affairs found a "pattern" of certain divorce lawyers litigating excessively just to ratchet up fees. Others unscrupulously demanded huge payments on the brink of trial. Still others overcharged, then abandoned clients when the money ran out, according to the report. Acting on the study, the New York court system yesterday added several new family law regulations. Nevertheless, for some, like Mrs. McHugo-Inouye, the experience of going without a lawyer is nightmarish. An unemployed teacher of English as a second language, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says she couldn't afford a lawyer to fight her ex-husband's demand for custody of their twin daughters. "I could have borrowed from my parents, but I didn't want to," she says. They had already lent her money during a previous custody battle with her ex-husband. This was either the fourth or fifth dispute for the couple -- the parents can't even agree on that. The girls, 12 years old at the time, had lived temporarily with their father for almost a year. He wanted permanent custody and had retained an attorney to get it. The showdown took place at the Family Court, Fifth Circuit, in Kauai, Hawaii. >From the moment she filed papers stating that she no longer had a lawyer, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says, she knew she was in trouble. She says a court clerk made her retype the entire form, because instead of using the words pro se, she had used pro per, an equivalent Latin phrase used in many states to describe someone representing herself. "They will hand you a form and say nothing," Mrs. McHugo-Inouye says. "If you ask for assistance, it's like it's really, really troublesome." The Kauai court administrator says he doubts this occurred. In any case, many self-represented litigants can recount similar experiences. In part that is because courts are so underfunded and overloaded that it is a genuine strain to give self-help litigants the extra attention they need. And many of the lawyerless test the court's patience. They turn in briefs scrawled in longhand, present arguments hysterically and display unrealistic expectations about just how much the system can do for them. Mrs. McHugo-Inouye, for instance, was disappointed that court staff wouldn't let her borrow a typewriter to retype filings. [FrogNote: Not surprising. If you don't have legible handwriting, then a typewriter, or even a simple computer and printer, can help immensely. Don't get compulsive, but keep it neat.] Even if they want to help, court employees, judges and attorneys are hamstrung by ethics codes that require the court to remain neutral and refrain from coaching or helping any party. It can be painful for workers and judges to see litigants adrift, losing out on opportunities they know nothing about. But it is also improper for judges to give a break to an unrepresented litigant just because he or she doesn't know the law. "You can't say, `I'm going to weigh this person's argument 60% because they're unrepresented, and I'll weigh the attorney's argument 40%,'" says Judge Clifford L. Nakea, who presided over Mrs. McHugo-Inouye's case. [Should we be expecting our adversary to help us in any way, shape or form? If they do, what is that help worth? Is it true that you get what you pay for -- in this case, nothing?] Mrs. McHugo-Inouye's biggest mistake was a whopper. On the day of final arguments, she had been under the impression that Judge Nakea would simply interview her daughters on the day of the court session and announce his ruling later. Instead, the judge finished interviewing the girls, entered the courtroom and asked Mrs. McHugo-Inouye and the opposing attorney to begin final arguments. Judge Nakea explained that all sides had agreed on such a trial during an earlier conference. Somehow, Mrs. McHugo-Inouye didn't get the message. Small wonder she seemed unprepared and distracted during her seven-minute argument. "If you don't know what the procedures are in the court system, you get killed," says Barbara E. Handschu, former head of the New York state bar's family-law section. "You get all sorts of complications that lay people may not realize." In divorce cases, for instance, the tax and insurance ramifications of splitting up can get extremely arcane. [Yet another reason not to obtain "marriage licenses" in the first place.] Still, not every lawyerless litigant gets pummeled. Deborah Crosby, a high-school drawing teacher in Chappaqua, N.Y., was divorced in 1987 but is still battling her ex-husband in a messy visitation dispute. She used lawyers for most of the fight but last October she decided she had had enough: "In one year, I'd spent $30,000 for nothing -- absolutely nothing. So I said, `How could it be worse if I represented myself?'" She felt confident she could do so because she has a master's degree - albeit in art education -- and enjoys research. Ms. Crosby contacted a group of legal-reform activists for tactical advice. She discovered a free law library at the local courthouse. By the time a major hearing rolled around in June, she was comfortable citing precedents and objecting to irrelevant testimony. "I've learned a lot," she says. By traditional legal standards, she has made some mistakes. She wasted a lot of time writing up a subpoena that she never served. She lost a battle to avoid paying her husband's legal costs after he won an appeal that she had initiated. But she has also argued calmly before hearing examiners and fended off her ex-husband's efforts to get more visiting time with the children. Also, in a fairly difficult maneuver, she managed to get a new law guardian appointed for them. Would she hire an attorney now, if she had the money? Laughing, she says, "I've been burned so seriously, it's like asking me if I would ever remarry. It would have to be an incredible attorney, with an incredible background." [Good for her!] Despite Ms. Crosby's experience, most legal experts agree that people who march into court without lawyers are at a disadvantage -- and one that is likely to become a fixture of the new legal environment, especially for the poor. As of 1990, only one legal-aid worker existed for every 7,808 people below the government's poverty line, while one private attorney existed for every 339 U.S. citizens. If there is any help on the way, it is likely to come in the form of innovations by court systems to make self-representation easier and more effective. In Maricopa Superior Court in Phoenix, the court's new services include a do-it-yourself divorce video, which plays almost continuously in a courthouse waiting room, and an on-the-spot attorney who charges $20 for a half-hour preparation session. In one branch of the court, there is a touch-screen computer that asks a series of questions and prints out completed court filings. The computer features an on-screen legal dictionary and even plays Vivaldi when it is idle. [How quaint. Irrelevant, and perhaps even inappropriate, but quaint. Don't fall for it. As the sovereign, YOU ARE THE COURT. Don't expect your adversary to help; don't expect the referee to do anything more than provide the place and the time.] [Rest of article deleted] Source: _The Wall Street Journal_. (c) 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc., August 17, 1993 Forma Pauperis. [Latin] In the character of a poor person -- a method by which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted to lose his case. - Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_ ** The Frog Farm Archives | The Frog Farm: | 91Jun25 3:11 pm | from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo (The trouble with censorship is ** *****) Lichen @ Garbanzo>>...could you explain common law trust? I couldn't find any explanation in my home library. :] I am, though, more cognizant of what common law itself is.<< A Common Law Business Trust is a private organization set up through a properly prepared contract. Assets are exchanged within the company. The contract, which is set for a specific period of time, may be renewed continually. And as the beneficiaries pass on, no death taxes or probate costs are incurred. ALL trust records are PRIVATE. Nothing is Publicly recorded. A properly designed and operated Business Trust can provide the ability to control, manage and limit both estate tax and current tax liabilities. The business trust is not subject to Corporate tax on dividends. If a trust distributes all of its income each year it is allowed to treat the distribution as a deduction to the Trust which means NO TAXABLE INCOME! A business trust will provide important estate considerations. Because the business and its assets are owned by the trustee, there is no probate, No Transfer of Ownership, No Disclosure of Assets (i.e. privacy is maintained), and No Estate Taxes. The business itself may continue uninterrupted with a successor/operator/manager/agent appointed by the trustee (including a surviving spouse, children, or a hired employee.) You set it up NOW to preceed your untimely death, God forbid. Privacy is fantastic because NO documents of the Trust are Public Record. The proper design and use of a business trust will provide a high degree of liability protection. With a business trust, potential liability claims are limited to the assets of the Trust. This protection can be enhanced by separating the high-risk assets back from the Trust. For example: A Hotel might separate its parking lot, pool, bar, restaurant and vehicles each into separate trusts to protect the asset and isolate the potential liability. The less assets you have in each trust, the less that trust could lose if it was sued. If your business lost the court case, the person(s) suing are limited to taking only what is in that certain trust. The assets of a Business Trust are exempt (in the absence of a fraudulent conveyance within one year prior to a bankruptcy) from the claims and actions of personal creditors. This works easily as well for personal assets too! Taking your eggs from being in one basket and spreading them around in other baskets to limit any possible damage, so to speak. You or your business can have as many trusts as you want. The more you separate you or your companies assets into different Trusts the less liability you or your business has. 91Jul23 9:13 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo Greetings from Alaska! People tell me that here on "The Last Frontier" so many people ignore Uncle Sam on April 15th that this "state" has the highest number of IRS agents in the field. There are very high numbers of "independent businessmen" here, which is a class that the IRS is determined to reduce if not wipe out entirely. Also, there are a large number of people who travel sans benefit of government permission. The second day I was here, I helped a guy who had no license or registration tow an "illegal" trailer bearing one of those large shipping containers for about 30 miles on a four-lane freeway into Anchorage. The trailer had no lights on it, and the lights on his truck didn't work. When I asked him whether he was worried about it, he said that he wasn't, and that lights aren't needed here in the land of the midnight sun anyway. I thought brake lights and turn signals were only a courtesy to other people on the road, but this guy didn't care at all. The notable near-absence of police on the roads made any concerns about being stopped negligible. The next day, this same guy lent me his Oldsmobile so I could explore Anchorage. The California registration on it expired two years ago, yet it has never been questioned. I enjoyed my ride unconcerned about it. Barry Wong>> Jim, would it be a good idea for Lichen to "really respond, giving full particulars of why you're here, for in that way, you can get this data into the record"? I thought you weren't supposed to ever answer any questions, except with other questions. Doesn't answering the question, even to get it into the court record, put you under the jurisdiction of the court? And isn't this what you DON'T want to do?<< Right, Barry. There's always a way to phrase a response as a question. And the point is that so seldom does a court really have jurisdiction, except in the case of a real common-law crime such as murder or robbery etc. that the first thing you should do is challenge jurisdiction, and make the prosecution, not the judge, prove the jurisdiction of the court. Lichen>> Also, the stuff like "Why are you here? -- Because I'm not elsewhere!" is entertaining, but I don't think it would really impress the judges/jurors.<< Who wants to impress judges/jurors?? The judge isn't there for anything except to commit reversible errors, and the jury should be making its decision based upon facts, not impressions. I really don't care what the judge or jury think, because if a case of mine gets that far, where a jury is impaneled, I'm counting on winning on appeal already. Juries are too ignorant to understand a lot of the things I rely upon to win, so why waste time worrying about them and what they think? b0b>> Frog Farmer - "family Bible"? That's really bizarre! Does that mean that only Christians can get a passport without a birth certificate? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?<< You think that's unusual b0b? How about the fact that recently Congress passed a law declaring the U.S. to be a Christian nation? I can't give the cite for it while I'm here in Alaska, but if you remind me, I'll post it for you in October when I get back to my reference materials. Lichen>> Still, there ought to be an alternative way to do things. Personally, I don't have my birthdate in the family bible. It's recorded and documented in my scrapbook, though...<< There OUGHT TO BE an alternative way? If so, then YOU "ought" to do it in that alternative way. Natural people existing at the Common Law don't need someone else to tell them what customs to follow - they create their own. YOUR scrapbook?? When did your birth get recorded there? Years after the fact? Hardly a documented record! More like hearsay! You don't need a Bible - three witnesses attesting to a birth are sufficient and could be written anywhere. Odin>> Lichen: Yeah it would be good if there was another way to get a passport that is non-Christian.<< Why do you need a passport? Why must you travel under an equitable contract? I don't need a passport to travel to another country. I just need the permission of the sovereign of that country to enter, and I can get that by asking for it. Why do you want to travel sponsored by the admiralyty jurisdiction located in Washington D.C.?? Such a privilege requires a corresponding duty. Attorney JS (quoting the ABA)>> "The exclusionary rule affects only a relatively small percentage of arrests and searches."<< Yeah, like 2 out of 10, or less. It isn't like it couldn't apply to ALL searches and seizures - it applies to any and all searches and seizures involving yours truly, because the first thing I do when engaged by a government agent is invoke it. I demand that they state their probable cause to believe a crime has been committed; I demand a 4th Amendment Warrant; I demand that counsel be present for any in-custody interrogation. These demands are necessary to invoke the rule. Attorney JS>> "Thus, the exclusionaly rule appears to be providing a significant safeguard of Fourth Amendment protections for individuals at modest cost in terms of either crime control or effective prosecution."<< True. It provides a safeguard for those who know how to use it, which are so few that there is hardly any effect at all on either crime control or effective prosecution. After all, most real criminals are more ignorant than their law-abiding fellow citizens. Nombrist Beor>> In a court at law, you are the sovereign holding your court. You enter your motions on the record and state the reasons for them (the sovereign is the author and source of the law!) You give all interested parties a chance to respond, otherwise, your orders go through uncontested. If another sovereign contests your order, then you have a choice of either appointing a master (referee) to decide the problem or use a jury for the same purpose. The master or jury has no power beyond deciding the law and the facts at law. If either disobeys, they are in contempt of either your court or the court of the defendant.<< Yes, and from what I've heard, there is often quite a bit of contempt of court committed by the clerks, judges, and sheriffs who may be involved, since few of them are familiar with "at Law" procedures. And then the sovereign involved often makes the mistake of listening to the bad legal advice those people give out, to his detriment. When you move "at Law" you really have to be on top of things. You can't look for help or advice from the people who would like to see you fail. NB>> As prima facie evidence of the law and the facts, you enter into the record your tacit procuration or your constructive notice.<< Both are beautiful tools for making record in your favor. Lawless public servants often fail to take them seriously, and then it is too late! Their failure to respond, often the result of their own arrogance, convicts them on the face of the record. No jury is necessary in those cases, judgement being entered on the record by the clerk as a result of the wrongdoer's default. Jim Bianchi>> Bush's new "anti-crime" bill HR-1400 is actually an anti -civil liberties, anti-constitution bill. It sure is, jimbo. That's why it's so important to learn how to deny these fools the jurisdiction they need in order to make their actions look legitimate in the eyes of the world. Remember, any law that is an unconstitutional violation of your rights is a law you have to challenge personally. An unconstitutional law is void and of no effect. This is just another one in a long string of unconstitutional decrees that the people accept when thrust upon them. It will apply to most folks, but not us, right? JB>> WHAT CAN YOU DO? Phone or write your congressman and tell them that you want our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties preserved, and request s/he vote against HR-1400.<< Very good advice for government subjects to follow, but what do I do when there is no one representing ME? I think I'll just have to hone my court skills in anticipation of yet one more assault upon my rights under color of law. Same old story, nothing new, just the players and code numbers they use are different. Barry Wong>> I think the point of the ownership discussion is that the state ACTUALLY HAS AN INTEREST in certain pieces of property (e.g. a car) because we contract away our rights to absolute ownership by registering them (and such). In other words, practical ownership works in most cases (especially if you're conforming to the statutes), but when you start trying to claim all of your constitutional rights, you need to have as clean a slate as possible.<< Hi Barry! I think you've got it! I think you've got it! The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. The pain in gain stems mainly from the brain! That is to say, our grief at finding out that we really don't own all those expensive things we worked so hard to acquire is a result of the fact that we didn't question the reason for the need of a signature when we acquired them! Now I sign everything "without prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207"!! Have you seen jimbo's rubber stamp? It leaves a memorable impression! Nombrist Beor>>...I find it much more challenging and my conscience feels better about doing it by 'their' rules.<< Yes, anyone can cheat at a game, but a real master plays by the rules, and plays to win! And what's so gratifying is that your opponents are not used to playing by the rules themselves; in fact, I dare say that they CANNOT play by the rules since their playing skills have atrophied due to the fact that most of their opponents lose to them by default, and few of their opponents know enough of the rules to be able to call them on any violations they may commit. A player who knows the rules, who can call all violations when he sees them occur, and takes the time to develop a winning strategy, finds it almost DIFFICULT to lose unless he throws the game intentionally! NB>> The biggest challenge is that there are all these people who want to point fire sticks at me among other things, so unless I want to go to jail and such, I got to beat them at the game.<< Yeah, the macho fire-stick thing is a problem nowadays with all these gung-ho ex-Marines they like to hire. That's why I like to put them at ease immediately by offering to get into the back seat of their cars if it would make them any happier. After all, they can always ask me to leave! Their fears arise when they imagine the possible forms of resistance you could offer if they chose to arrest you. So I eliminate that fear immediately. So far, I've never been taken into custody. It kinda reminds me of a scene from the movie "The Golden Child", where Eddie Murphy encounters the police in the airport upon arriving from Nepal. They were there to arrest him, and you could see the fear and worry over how it would go down showing on their faces, when Eddie Murphy went up to them with hands together outstretched, as if to ask to be handcuffed, and said, "I have been so bad, you should arrest me right now! I should be punished!" The cops actually took a few steps backwards, and didn't arrest him! Anybody see that scene? Barry Wong quoting Frank Zappa>> I don't think it's any accident that the educational system in America has been brought to its current state. Because only a totaly uneducated mass of people will be baffled by balloons. And yellow ribbons and little flags and buzz words and guys saying "new world order" and s**t like that, I mean only a person who has been dissuaded from any kind of critical thinking and doesn't know geography, doesn't know the English language - I mean if you can't speak English, then this stuff works on you.<< You can thank the valiant efforts of the National Education Association for the wonderful job of diseducation they have performed upon our populace. It's no accident. Frank was one of the early influences on me during my teenage years, especially that album that parodied the cover of the Sgt. Pepper album. I listened to it between news reports of the 1968 Democratic Convention riots. I remember enjoying civics class. I remember thinking how great it was to live in America where you were free to do as you liked as long as you didn't infringe upon anyone else's rights. But by my senior year in high school, I saw it as AMERIKA. It seemed to me as though the government had lost sight of its true purpose. Exercise of rights was seen as being a threat to the administration. And from 1968 onward, I watched as things got worse and worse. I had to finally be driven to my personal limits of endurance in 1979 before I said "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." From 1979 through 1984 was my trial by fire, where I challenged the government on every issue they cared to prosecute. In the year 1984, I saw it as being almost a sacred duty to fight "Big Brother". After that, it became almost a hobby. I became a collector of motions and briefs and defenses, much like anyone else would collect works of art. I began to collect court citations like others would collect baseball cards. I stood on street corners handing out leaflets printed at my expense, trying to inform the public of their plight, to no avail. It seemed hopeless. Then I got my computer and discovered BBSing. Surely the higher educated class of computer users would be thirsting for the type of information I had gathered. Nope. But if I could just find A FEW who would listen, if only to reassure me that I was not the last of a nearly-extinct species, that would be enough. The search through the myriad message bases available to me had the opposite effect of what I had expected. Not only was there no interest in these matters, there was hostility and resentment that such things would even be brought to the public's attention. But then there were a few enlightened sysops who knew that even unpopular ideas should have an outlet. Thus was The Frog Farm born. Today, much of the hostility on my part has been replaced with understanding and compassion for the plight of the unknowing public, probably to the degree that I have extricated myself from the snares they so willingly embrace. It's good to see that the message has been transmitted to the next generation. That's all I could ever have asked for. Barry Wong>> 1) Can a person whose rights were not guaranteed by the Constitution when it was written (for instance, decendants of black slaves) claim the same rights that you do?<< It was not RACE which made a person a slave. There were free blacks at the time of the writing of the Constitution. And many slaves were freed by their masters prior to the Civil War. To answer your question, ANY HUMAN BEING may claim, exercise and defend his/her inalienable rights, at any time and in any place, so long as they haven't contracted away those rights in return for some payment or other "benefit". It should be noted that the Constitution distiguishes between those "free persons" and "those bound to service for a term of years" (Article 1, section 2). It also recognizes the right of a person to change his status, through contract, from that of "free person" to one "bound to service for a term of years", and it will not interfere with that decision once it has been made (Article 1, section 10). So, now we must ask the question, have the descendants of the black slaves chosen to be free, or have they, like most others today, chosen to be bound to service for a term of years?? Did they apply for and use social security numbers? Do they claim privileges of citizens of the Admiralty jurisdiction? Maybe they gave up the rights able to be claimed by a free man. In that case, claiming them would be an act of fraud, would it not? 91Sep21 10:26 am from frog farmer @ Garbanzo I've noticed over the years that many people who suddenly find out about sovereignty, and realize that they waived theirs long ago, seem to always want to justify servitude and disparage sovereignty, rather than find out how to regain their original superior status. Many, who express some interest in regaining it, go as far as to inquire if there is some form they can fill out and hand in to some government agency and thereby become sovereign. Upon finding that this is not the case, they lapse back into defending their subject status, and they attack sovereignty as being unnecessary, unattractive, even untenable. They do this without knowing anything about it. At the same time, most do not know anything about the subject status they are defending. The major defense seems to be that if sovereignty was such a good thing, then why hadn't they heard about it in school? (THEY DID!) Or why don't they personally know several people who exercise all their rights in the face of government opposition? If sovereignty was so good, they seem to be saying, then it would be far more popular. I think they credit the general population with far too much intelligence. They seem to think that anything worth knowing is covered by the TV networks and media news - that surely, if it is important, it is covered by the local college's curriculum. After all, how can anything so important be missing from the everyday common knowledge of the average person? If they could only accept the ideas of the existence and utilization of disinformation and brainwashing... Up here in Alaska, sovereignty seems to be better understood. Just today there was an article in the newspaper about it, and about how the Natives up here are finding new and better ways to take advantage of it. Up here, people seem to know that there are two kinds of natives: sovereigns and subjects of Uncle Sam. Still, few question the fact that very few Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/etc. are sovereign. One thing that newspaper article pointed out was the fact that the U.S. government doesn't respect or recognize the rights of the sovereign Alaskans. It challenges them every chance it gets, and only backs off if the sovereign Alaskans defend their rights. It also pointed out that in the face of this government opposition, many of the sovereigns choose to waive certain rights in return for the government's recognition of others, as though the hassle of defending all their rights wasn't worth it. So, it seems to be understood that certain people have certain rights, that the government violates them, and that some people will give up rights that everyone knows they have just because defending them seems to be a "hassle". Isn't that interesting? As the Supreme Court has said, rights will only be afforded the belligerent claimant in person. And they can only be maintained through "sustained combat". Do you think the newly "free" Russians and other Eastern European peoples will be allowed to have their rights, or will they too be "subjected" under some alien commercial jurisdiction controlled from London and Zurich? Like the World Bank?? 91Oct13 6:08 pm from mad mooney @ Garbanzo My FOG Index program rates the original Constitution with the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) as being at a 17.9 grade reading level. After I added the next 16 pseudo-amendments, it dropped to 16.9. Just for a reference, the Magna Carta came out at 15.0 (although it's MUCH harder to read in reality, I think, but the program can't make allowances for all the grammer differences for a document with the middle english style). 91Oct13 10:04 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo Hey Mooney! I noticed that your program says that the Constitution and Magna Carta require a grade level significantly higher than most people possess in order to be understood. Does this tend to explain why the United States has the highest percentage of its people incarcerated of all the countries in the entire world? Or does it tend to show the relative efficiency of our educational systems? What grade level is required in order to expect a person to be able to program a VCR? I've heard that the majority of VCR owners cannot program their machines to record a future television broadcast. Does this mean that we who can read, write, and understand English will become the new elite? b0b>) Wasn't it Reagan who admitted that he couldn't figure out how to program his VCR? Or was it Bush? Anyway, I think that's pathetic. In our house, we have a VCR programming specialist. Mrs. b0b has a high school education, with a weakness in math, but she was able to master the VCR from reading the manual.<< We (you & I & Mrs. b0b) are lucky enough to be from the time when they used to hold you back a grade if you couldn't do the schoolwork. And that motivated most of our generation(s?) to apply ourselves, study, and pass. But today, students are advanced to the next grade even though they cannot do the work. This past weekend, I encountered a fourth grader who needed his father to tell him what the labels on some cassettes said. He could not read them. This same youngster then went on to tell us how he had learned in school that wood could melt if left in the sunlight. I asked him where he had picked up that piece of misinformation, and he said he learned that in the third grade. b0b>> I think the real problem is that many Americans never learned to follow directions. Mrs. b0b learned by sewing from patterns; I learned by building models. If our school system doesn't teach people how to "RTFM", how can we expect Americans to learn to use the high-tech devices we love to create? I expect the great majority of Americans to become functionally illiterate, as time goes on, and as as time goes on and the educated ones die off, and to become a pool of uneducated unskilled labor for the emerging new European economy, much as Mexicans functioned in the past for United States businesses. The United States is already the world's largest debtor nation, and is well on the way to achieving true "Third World" status. FF>> But today, students are advanced to the next grade even though they cannot do the work. b0b>> Not true, FF. My nephew is repeating the fourth grade right now. He didn't pass his tests, so they flunked him. Three of our four daughters received a very good education in the public schools here in Sonoma County, and the fourth dropped out but later got her GED, which is a tough way to get that high school degree.<< Today at the gem show we met a Petaluma high school teacher of 15 years. She confirmed that they do pass kids who can't read, because they can only hold them back a year or two - after that the older kids pose too much of a physical threat to the younger students. It was her opinion that many of today's students had brain damage caused by the drugs the mother was taking while pregnant. She said the "crack babies" are just beginning to appear in the first grade now, and she anticipates things getting much worse in the years to come. I'll tell you about some evidence of mass illiteracy (or maybe it's just mass stupidity?) that I witnessed today. I was in traffic court in Santa Rosa this morning from 8:30 until 11:30 AM in order to witness a few students trying out some new procedures (new to them). Many defendants expressed the thought that while they were supposedly NOT GUILTY, they would fork over anywhere from 20 to 50 FRNs just to avoid "hassle". At about 8:45, the magistrate told one spunky individual who chose to plead "not guilty" and have a trial that while he DID have the right to a speedy trial within 45 days, the court's calendar was full, and the soonest that a day could be scheduled for a trial was AFTER the 45-day limit. The magistrate then asked the man if he would waive his right to a speedy trial so that the trial could be held. The man agreed to waive the right! If he had not done so, he would have won by default, but here this guy that was motivated to plead not guilty was so ignorant that he gave the government another chance to convict him. What's worse is that at least 9 other persons waived their right to a speedy trial after pleading "not guilty". And many others plead guilty while also expressing the idea that they were really NOT GUILTY. So, none of them were capable of understanding the ramifications of the full court calendar. None of them understood the fact that if they had demanded a trial that they would probably have won by default. And so, I watched as the magistrate skillfully sheared over 12,000 frns and hundreds of hours of "community service" from the bleating sheeple. One fellow in his 20's was there with his father. His "crime" was speeding. He was given over 200 hours of work to perform. I invited them to stay and witness what would happen to our students, whose "crimes" were even more "serious" - driving without a license or registration. The magistrate was saving our students for last so as not to have any witnesses who might learn something. They even went to the extent of having the bailiff poll all persons in the courtroom as to why they were there before calling the students forward. The father & son stayed at my suggestion, and the bailiff came over and asked them "what's wrong?" hoping that they would leave. Because of their presence, the magistrate denied motions that had been granted in other cases, and went so far as to lie about some supposed "case law" that had changed since the last time the motions were used. He was asked what the name of the case was, and what court it came out of, but he could only say that he "read it somewhere". This didn't hurt the student's cases, but it did go to persuade the father/son duo that we were wrong. Outside the courtroom, we explained what had happened, and that indeed we did have information that would lead to a dismissal of any case where there was no victim. The father couldn't believe it, and asked why, if it was true, didn't all the lawyers use the information to get their clients off the hook. He asked why it wasn't popularized in the media. I guess he never heard of the LAW ENFORCEMENT GROWTH INDUSTRY. Anyway, it seemed that the paperwork necessary just to make the motion to quash was too much for this father/son duo, even though it was only 4 pages. It seemed that the son would rather spend 200 hours at some menial labor rather than disturb the peaceful tranquility of his brain by trying to understand concepts that were new to him that would require some thought and investigation on his part. They declined our invitation to attend one of our study meetings. THe father asked if our "group" had a "charter". 91Nov04 10:33 pm from frog farmer @ Garbanzo Timechild>> Hey, friend, next time you (or one of your students) are going to court about driving without license or registration, can you let me know? It would be worth missing a class or two to watch those methods in action. I have only been in a courtroom once (and under unhappy, unenjoyable circumstances, at that) so it would be a good experience as well as an educational one. I have a little fear of courtrooms, since I have the suspicion that they might bring back bad memories, but in any case... let me know... Hey, friend, my days of going to court over the license issue are over - I won that issue 3 times years ago, and they just don't bother me over it anymore. Since then, when I am accosted by a police officer and hassled for not having a license, something in what I say and do makes them let me go without writing a ticket. You say it would be worth it to miss a class or two to watch what happens in the courtroom. I don't think so. Here's why: when the judge sees that a crowd has gathered to watch what is going on, he will invariably rule against the defendant, even if his ruling creates a reversible error, rather than let the audience see our procedures work. This doesn't really hurt our case, but it leaves the wrong impression with the audience, who may not understand and who may think that the defendant "lost" and that indeed you DO need a license, which is what the judge is hoping the audience will think. This happened last time. They scheduled our guys for 8:30 A.M but then they made them wait until 11:30 while they tried to empty out the courtroom by taking everyone else first, even those who were sheduled later than 8:30. Finally, everyone had been dealt with, yet there were still about 15 people in the gallery. THe judge had the bailiff personally go to each person and ask why they were there! They wanted no witnesses for what was going to occur. I asked a man and his son (who was just sentenced to 200 hours of slave labor, so-called "volunteer work") to stay and watch, in the hopes that they would learn that there was an alternative. The judge appeared disturbed that they remained, and the bailiff came over to them asking "Is there some kind of a problem?" Finally, they couldn't stall any longer and they called on the two remaining defendants, who just coincidentally were the ONLY defendants all day to have filed any paperwork with the court, and who NOT COINCIDENTALLY FILED THE EXACT SAME PAPERWORK. Their papers challenged the jurisdiction of the court to even hear the case without there being a formal complaint filed. The judge (really not a judge, but a magistrate) ruled against them both, claiming that there was "case law" that effectively overturned the laws our guys were relying upon. When asked just what that case was, the judge said that he couldn't remember, but he knew there was such a case because he "remembered reading it somewhere". So he set another court date for our friends to appear again. The man and his son appeared disgusted, having believed that our strategy "didn't work", while we all knew that the magistrate was lying just for their benefit. This was confirmed several days later when the magistrate, attempting to back up his actions, provided us with two cases which he contended upheld his position that no complaint was necessary. What he produced were the two exact cases we relied upon to prove that one WAS NECESSARY. He was intentionally mistating and misinterpreting the cases, which was great for us, since appeals courts know how to read a little better than traffic magistrates. But the point is that the man and his son thought we were the losers, because when we didn't "win" right there in front of them, they went off and didn't want to hear anymore of what we have to say. This is probably what would happen if you took off from school to see a court appearance with us. I'd tell you that it was at 8:30, and you'd get frustrated and tired and probably not be willing to stay until 11:30 or even past lunch until 1:30 to see what happened. And even if you did stay, without being familiar with the issues and the paperwork, what happened in the court would probably not make much sense to you, since there is very little talking and the whole thing is usually over within 5 or 10 minutes, most of it being based upon paperwork previously filed with the court. And then there would probably be another hearing scheduled. In one of my cases, there were 9 attempted arraignments before a plea was even entered! Now, if you are really interested in learning something, you should buy a few books and READ the pertinent parts. You should get a paperback copy (West's Annotated Editions) of CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, CALIFORNIA & U.S. CONSTITUTIONS, MAGNA CARTA, & CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE. You can get the Constitutions & Magna Carta in one book free from your assemblyman's office in the State building in downtown Santa Rosa. You can get the Vehicle code for 3 bux at the DMV. After you get the books, you can come here with any questions you might have. As soon as I see that you are serious, I'd invite you to one of the private study group meetings we have, and you'd be prepared to go into the court without fear. FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real. FF sez: >> Anyone serious about defending their right has to be ready to appeal to a higher court if ruled against in the lower courts. Those who do appeal these prosecutions tend to have the cases against them dismissed, so there is no record to show up in the legal journals. << And Somebody (??) replied: >Surely you jest. The courts of appeal reverse a small minority of >cases, regardless of merits. And, the routine denials of appeal >never gets published, whereas its the dismissals that would get some >attention, merely by virtue of the appeal being seriously considered. Frog Farmer further clarifies: I did not mean that the APPEAL WAS DISMISSED, I meant that the original charges against the defendant are dismissed. I would have never believed this to have been the case unless I saw it personally happen to me in my case. There are a lot of appeals that are made that are never heard, because hearing them would create case law that might get reported, yet they are not dismissed because they were done properly. So what happens? - the government throws in the towel and the lower court "dismisses the charges" as though the whole thing had never happened. There are no records of these occurances. They make the appeal moot. Clifford Johnson>> ... so let me point something out. Typically, after every suit, the losing party has a right to appeal _as_of_ right_ to the court of appeals. There is no "denial of appeal" (although, if the appeal is clearly without merit, it can be dismissed as frivolous, and the lawyer sanctioned). Further appeal (e.g., to the Supreme Court), requires a party to petition the Court to here his case; this is a petition for "certiorari". If the Court grants certiorari, the court hears the case. The failure of the court to grant cert does not mean it agrees with the lower court, only that it does not want to hear the case. Maybe it thinks the time for that issue is not now, maybe it just can't fit it into the docket.<< And maybe, more likely, it was disqualified according to the Ashwander rules. ** [You'll want to clean this one up before printing it out and using it. It can be a very useful little tool.] P U B L I C S E R V A N T ' S Q U E S T I O N A I R E Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies...to permit and individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies." The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary in order that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency. 1. Name of public servant............... 2. Residence......City.....State......Zip...... 3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed........supervisor's name...... 4. It's mailing address...........City......State....Zip...... 5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States? 6. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? 7. What was the nature of proof?.............. 8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation? 9. Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing the questions he will ask? 10. Are the answers to the questions voluntary or mandatory? 11. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or regulation, or are they being used as a discovery process? 12. What other uses may be made of this information? 13. What other agencies may have access to this information? 14. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions? 15. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be made............... 16. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'? 17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation? 18. If so, the identity of such third parties.......... 19. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek? 20. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? If yes, which? 21. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source? 22. May I have a copy of that information? 23. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? If not, why not? If any request for information relating to me is received from any person or agency, you must advise me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act. I swear (affirm) that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular. ___________ Date: ____/_____ Witness:____________ Witness:_______________ Authorities for Questions: 1,2,3,4 In order to be sure you know exactly who you are giving the information to. Residence and business addresses are needed in case you need to serve process in a civil or criminal action upon this individual. 5 All public servants have taken a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution. 6,7 This is standard procedure by government agents and officers. See Internal Revenue Manual, MT-9900-26, Section 242.133. 8,9,10 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A) 11 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1) 12,13 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e) (3) (C) 14 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (D) 15 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1) 16 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A) 17,18 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (2) 19 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5) 20,21 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1) 22 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (1) 23 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (10) ** Administrivia: Famous Pagans in the Patriot Community Revealed! (Stolen from Tom Jennings' "Famous Homosexuals in Fidonet Revealed!". Thank you, Tom, for providing the only BBS software I could find for my dad's DEC Rainbow 100+ "way back" in 1983, and helping (along with other sources) to introduce me to the vast electronic networks outside my local area code...) Freshly back from vacation, your humble moderator is about as refreshed and relaxed as is possible. Four days off in the woods, no hot showers (ice-cold water being the Great Equalizer of all males), full of such sanity-saving elements as beating the hell out of big drums and falling in love/lust with a good friend (stressful, unrequited, but definitely not a problem for anyone involved, and still more enjoyable than not...). Yes, the horrible truth is out; your humble, self-proclaimed atheist/objectivist/etc moderator is a "pagan"! Gadzooks! Is nothing sacred? Well, to be totally accurate, a pagan is anything that's not a Christian. Hmm. George Gordon devotes a bit of explanation somewhere to why he doesn't refer to himself as a Christian, since supposedly, Christ's followers didn't call themselves Christians, but Christ's enemies did. Perhaps an interesting side topic; perhaps not. In any case, yes, I'm most decidedly atheist, and have been ever since I was introduced to the concept of "god(s)". Insofar as the "festivals" are concerned, I enjoy the company of the friends from my town who usually go as well, and a vacation's a vacation; some people like to strap sticks on their feet and go sliding down dangerous mountaintops, I like to beat on a piece of wood and animal skin for hours on end. Despite the collectivist mindset that can prevail among most folks of a Leftish bent, and despite the "tribal", mind-numbing effect that mass hypnotic drumming has, I still do it. I find it very relaxing, and it doesn't change my philosophical beliefs at all, and that's all that matters. During my intellectual "coming-out" during high school, most of the more open-minded and tolerant people I met were of the pagan (read: Wiccan or related) persuasion, and a good deal of my friends still are. I've learned, of course, that prejudice and ignorance are everywhere, but on the whole, the majority of the pagan community would be less opposed to the concept of individual sovereignty than most, if they could work past their underlying collectivist premises. (This is one thing that I particularly notice these days; I seem to automatically analyze everything I hear "in the background", and try to extrapolate the underlying philosophical beliefs that drive the convictions the person is stating. And it's easy to see the contradictions in most of the statements people make.) In any event, other people's religious beliefs don't bother me one bit, unless they're used as a rationalization for the initiation of force. An example of other contradictory religious folks is John Redelfs, moderator of ACT's mailing list (act-request@bolis.sf-bay.org to subscribe, I think; devoted to traditional CFR and Trilateralist world-views) posted an article to alt.conspiracy recently explaining his "Principles of Liberty", which stated, among other things, that belief in God was a prerequisite for Natural Law and Rights. And this is a view I disagree with. But I also don't believe that a sense of "religiousness" necessarily makes someone a bad person. I'm going on record here to recommend that he read James Donald's essay on Natural Law and Rights. (If anyone ever gets sick of hearing me plug this, feel free to speak up; even though it probably won't stop me, it's nice to have feedback... ;) The more relevant negative aspect I find on the act list is the expressed yearning of some of the members for "a modern George Washington" to rally them all around.. something, I guess. I quietly make changes in my own life, and spread this junk around, and hope that some people find it of value, and perhaps of use. As a just-for-fun exercise, I'm in the process of writing up a sample brief a la Gordon for claiming the right to free speech without any "religious basis". Gordon, Bruce McCarthy, et al., all use this odd mixture of ecclesiastical and Biblical references in with their legal citations, all of which I see as unnecessary; ALL persons who are capable of exercising and defending Rights, already possess those rights. Religious freedom is a good issue, but there are better ones, and I contend that the right to freedom of religion must also necessarily equate to freedom FROM religion! The 1st Amendment's original intent was to protect "freedom of conscience" -- the power of free will; to decide, and accept the consequences of your decision -- in essence, as many modern-day self-proclaimed pagans would put it, "to do what thou wilt, an ['as long as'] it harm none". I've actually been working on this brief for over two years now, and still haven't shown it to anyone; obviously, this is not good! These things should be used, not gather dust. So I'm attempting to get myself jump-started enough to at least get it into presentable form, and should get it here Real Soon Now. Enough babbling about me; it's time for some real mailing list news. (My mailbox had SIXTY-TWO (62) new messages in it! PLUS I had to grab the last four days' worth of Libernet[-D] Digests, and then read my newsgroups of choice (pared down to 18, two of which see posts less than .4 times per blue moon). Maybe it's time to get a life (or at least start logging on less often). This installment, incidentally, is the largest one so far, but this can easily be explained by noting the presence of the DnA article. I'd really appreciate getting some comments at this point on your opinions of the overall quality of the list; as a matter of fact, what would be great is to have you send "ratings" from 1 to 10 on each individual article in all the installments that you've had time to read and formulate an opinion on, as well as whatever comments you have (like "too technical!". I'll ignore any complaints about spelling and/or grammar unless A) I wrote the item in question, and B) your complaint actually has some merit. ;) How You Can Post To Usenet By E-Mail: There are other services available (including the much-discussed anonymous servers), but the one I primarily use is at the University of Texas. You post by sending mail to the group name @cs.utexas.edu, replacing the dots in the group name with hyphens, i.e., alt-society-sovereign@cs.utexas.edu Don't forget to use an appropriate Subject: line. Note that this method precludes posting to groups with hyphens in their names, so if you have a burning need to post to a group meeting this criterion, try either pws.bull.com or news.cs.indiana.edu. Here, you can type the exact name of the group instead of converting periods to hyphens, as in alt.sex.kibo.bite-me@pws.bull.com alt.farce.kibo.bad-actors.charging-elephants@news.cs.indiana.edu Note that I haven't tried either of these latter two sites in quite a while. If you make sure to keep all the header lines together, you should be able to use your text editor to add header lines or modify existing ones, such as adding newsgroups to the Newsgroups: line (but try not to get carried away... ;) A subscriber suggested another actual question for the FAQ. I think it's an excellent one, and here's my rough draft for the answer. QUESTION: "What does FrogFarmer advise that I should do (or not do) if I am arrested? What cases should I cite? What rights should I demand? What shouldn't I say?" ANSWER: An answer to these questions might be construed as legal advice. The Frog Farm does not provide legal advice, nor do any of its participants, who merely speak from their own experience and knowledge. However, it is possible to be less cryptic than this. There is far too much material under this heading to fit here, unless condensed greatly. An example might be: - Learn how to read and comprehend a percentage of the English language, as described earlier in this FAQ. - Obtain the relevant law books (your state's Code of Civil Procedure, Penal Code, Rules of Court and Evidence Code, or the appropriate federal books for a federal case) and read the relevant sections. - Type up and send Constructive Notices and Notice of Dishonor within 3 days of receiving your ticket or being arrested. - Type up subpoenas for all arresting officers and the person who signed the complaint and schedule a motion hearing where you will make a Motion To Quash the Summons, at which time you obtain your depositions from the arresting officer. You should prepare your list of questions to ask the witnesses when you have them on the stand at the motion hearing. Their answers will cause the judge to dismiss the charges, if your questions are the right ones. Your questions have to be based upon the codes, and the answers will go to show that the procedures followed by the police were all invalid and that the persons you subpoenaed are all guilty of perjury. The beauty of it is that you don't even have to testify yourself, and the cops are so uneducated in law that they will not even know that they are convicting themselves out of their own mouths. However, this ONLY WORKS when there is no VICTIM or INJURED PARTY. It also only works when you UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE DOING, and are prepared to FOLLOW THROUGH to the utmost (see Wisconsin v. Yoder, summarized below). We will assume that these two conditions are true, for the purposes of this answer. Every arrest, detention, stop and confrontation with government officials is different, and it is impossible to imagine (in order to pretend) all the different things that might be said, and when. Each and every situation is unique, and this is why the question cannot be answered. However, a general consensus has developed, which can be summarized relatively easily as follows: -:- Never ask, "Am I under arrest?"; rather, always ask, "Am I free to go?". An arrest is a certain procedure that must meet certain criteria in order to be done lawfully. You should not "help out" with your own arrest by merely leaving it up to them to say "Yes", but force those responsible to go through all of the due process you demand. -:- Don't hassle people about your rights. Respect their point of view, and where they let you, educate them about the law. Make your demands with a quiet voice and a friendly smile. If someone is insensitive about your rights, have the patience to wait until you get to the court room to reclaim them. Always be friendly, regardless of how they treat you... you'll get even in the courtroom. It can be very risky to their financial health to ignore or abuse your rights. But it can just as easily be risky to your physical health if you ignore or abuse their overly inflated sense of importance. There's no sense in taunting bulls; just wait for them to get out of breath charging around before sticking it to 'em. -:- Before asking if you are free to go, try to ascertain just who it is who is accosting you by asking their identity. If the answer is that it's a government agent of some kind, ask if they will fully identify themselves. The answer is usually "yes", so pull out your PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONAIRE (included elsewhere in this installment) and ask them to kindly fill it out. They will usually decline, so offer to fill it out for them if they will answer the questions. If they refuse, inform them that their refusal to fully identify themselves and cooperate in your investigation will be reported to their superior, and suggest at that time that they call for back-up for several reasons: 1) They have violated your right to the requested information 2) They have proven themselves incompetent to understand the law 3) You now have reason to doubt whatever they say regarding their being an officer of the law (they could be a highway robber, trying to get you to drop your guard). If they can manage to get a few more people in police cars to the scene, you can probably rule out their being a robber in costume. When the superior officer arrives, go through the whole thing again. If things get nasty, you could demand their probable cause for believing you guilty of committing a crime, and demand a 4th amendment warrant and counsel present before you answer any in-custody interrogation. This would invoke the exclusionary rule. -:- Carry copies of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, to make sure they've all been informed regarding the fact that your fingerprints are private property which cannot be taken over your objection without a valid court order. -:- Don't refuse their offer of "counsel" straight off. It can be useful to get the counsel to refuse to help you on their own, or you can fire them in open court for refusing to obey your instructions, or for attempting to waive any of your rights, like the right to a speedy trial. Always make it clear that they are not representing you, but merely serving as counsel. When you finally do go to court, make friends with the clerk by conforming as much as possible to the clerk's demands for format, timeliness, etc. (provided that you don't give up any significant rights in the process). Respect the legal maxim, "The law does not bother with trifles." Don't necessarily exact the Shakespearian pound of flesh. Like the government courts, you can put abusers on probation. They then know that when you could have put them in jail for their "white collar" offenses, you didn't. When dealing with errant public officials, you can refer to those situations, and let them know that although you were easy then, they shouldn't push their luck now. :-) But the most important thing is attitude. If you're a free person, if you've rescinded all contracts with government, then act like it. Exercise your rights, and when necessary, defend them as passionately as you exercise them. A relevant case is Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), which established the tests necessary to distinguish a belief based on CONVICTION rather than PREFERENCE. The importance of the distinction is that according to the Court's decision, only CONVICTIONS are protected by the Constitution. The test consists of five major circumstances you must maintain your belief in the face of, which are: 1) Peer pressure 2) Family pressure 3) Threat of lawsuit 4) Threat of jail 5) Threat of death So one must be smart enough to understand all the responsibilities involved in having sovereign status, and maintain one's beliefs in the face of all opposition. Otherwise the court will view your stance as a convenient excuse (preference) to get out of the "legal duties" incurred by subjects ("income tax", "license fees", etc) -- i.e., they will assume you are lying, and that you really ARE a sheeple, one who is subject to their jurisdiction. [end of proposed FAQ addition] (So how's that, everyone? Please, comment.) I was also asked, "Shouldn't all the case citations on the FAQ and elsewhere on the distribution list contain the YEAR of the decision, not just its book and page number?" It would probably be a Good Thing, yes. I have made the provided citations as complete as possible through my own research, but a great deal of them have not been checked. Any misattributions should be fixed, so if you spot any, let me know so I can fix it ASAP. Finally: Yes, you read the headline way back there correctly -- we have an ACTUAL SUBMISSION! I'm posting this anonymously because I don't know if the subscriber who sent it intended it to be as such, even though it's merely forwarded from Libernet (and therefore, some of you have seen it already). So in the future, please let me know if you want your submissions to be attributed to you when they're posted. Here it is: >From: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU Subject: The Empire's serfs revolt? To: Libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 10:54:00 -0400 Here is another New York update, pulled off the UPI wire today the 16th. "Albany - A lawsuit with potentially serious implications for the New York State Government is back on track after an appellate Court ruling today. Gadfly Robert Schulz of Glens Falls is suing New York over the way the government borrows money. The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court had thrown out the action, saying Schulz had NO grounds to sue. But the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, and the mid-level Court today formally said his case can proceed. If successful, Schulz's latest lawsuit could threaten million's of dollars in State spending. Schulz claims officals violated the State Constitution by NOT getting voter's permission to sell bonds." Mr. Schulz has filed over 30 suits as a common citizen in the last 15 years. He has no law training other than personal experince, and is now trying to form a state wide "All Countys Taxpayers Union" to take local goverments to court over constitutional violations. ACT-U has formed in over 60% of the counties in New York, and is chalenging the lack of voteing on School budgets in small cities. Mr. Schulz was first told that his suit agianst the New York government over the sale of state property to other governmental agencys, had no bases. It seems that tax-payers can not question the spending of elected officals. Mr. Schulz replied something along the lines of "I am not suing as a taxpayer, but as a voter." Well it turns out that voters do have the right to defend the constitution. If you would like more on Mr. Schulz, Email this address. William Kone Kone@courier1.sha.cornell.edu +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.---Thomas Jefferson ----- End Included Message ----- ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From: kone@courier1.sha.cornell.edu Subject: more on Mr. Schulz Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 18:05:00 -0400 Well here is more on ACTA, the group formed by Mr. Schulz. I will post the entire flyer on Libernet. The Address is ACTA, Box 177, Star Route Glens Falls, NY 12801 (518)-656-3578 "ACTA'S UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE: ACTA's motto is "Deeds, not Words." That's why we believe in fighting government wrongdoing in court as advocates, rather than on the courthouse steps as protesters. ACTA has become so effective, that Government officals tried to get Robert Schulz - ACTA's founder - barred from court for life! Fortunately, they failed. Government wrongdoing poses a greater threat to our freedom and our way of life than all the petty crooks and white-collar criminals combined. For ecample, in New York it's unconstitutional to spend public money to benefit private intrests, but it happens all the time because nobody challenges it. More money is taken illegally on a single day by state and local government than by all the pick pockets and con-artists in a lifetime. ACTA is determined to stop this. Every citizen has the right to take their government to court "pro-se" (without an attorney). ACTA has proven that ordinary citizens can challenge their government in court and win. We encourage every citizen to stand "eternally vigialnt' and, when necessary, go to court to protect our freedmos, and stop government misdeeds and wrongdoings. As an ACTA member, you will not be alone." William Kone ----- End Included Message ----- And that's it for installment #11. Be seeing you... ** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7 zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t aS51cz4= =WIMt -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----