Received: from mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.96) by postoffice-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.adl.990907) with ESMTP id OAA13121 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from djranch.earthlink.net (pool0124.cvx10-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.182.124]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02447; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:10:27 -0700 Message-ID: <01BEFD28.9041C0A0.d2ranch@earthlink.net> From: Dave and Dionne Subject: Finally! Someone hitting them where they live!!!!!! Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:01:53 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 125 TEXT, 437 UUENCODE X-MS-Attachment: Class Declaratory.html 0 00-00-1980 00:00 Friends, Please bear with my personal comments. The real meat of this e-mail is contained in the attached HTML file, but I thought I'd lay some ground work before you get to that attachment. Hopefully my intro remarks will bring the real significance of the attached HTML file into better focus. For years now I have been saying our primary problem is that our original common-law courts have been eradicated by the power-brokers and that the "courts" into which we have been dragged for the last 20-50 years (depending on where you live) are actually nothing more than legislative tribunals that do not rule on "Law", but only rule as to whether you violated a code and regulation. In today's courts, you can't even get a judge to respond to a motion requesting the government prove its jurisdiction by providing evidence to the court that you are a person who is subject to, or liable to, the code or regulation under which you are being charged. Here in California we have two cases which have never been overturned and which are truly amazing. One says that all California courts are Nisi Prius. Nisi Prius courts are courts of "compelled performance". "Compelled Performance" is only found in contract law. Ergo, all California courts are courts of contract. The second case states that all the "codes" (except the penal code) are, in their nature, assumpsit. Without giving a long winded explanation of "assumpsit", it means that YOU CREATE YOUR OWN "obligation" to the code by committing an "act of assumpsit" which "demonstrates" your desire (yeah, right) to be obligated to a particular code. One example of an act of assumpsit is to complete and submit an application to your Department of Motor Vehicles for a driver's license. By doing so, you demonstrate your desire (or at least acceptance) to be "bound" by the vehicle code. Now there's a funny thing going on here in California. First, if you submit a "motion to dismiss" to a California court based on the fact that they are Nisi Prius courts and that there is no contract or agreement supporting the action before the court, the court will REFUSE to rule on the motion! Ordinarily, if a court thinks a motion is in error, the court will simply "deny" the motion. However, in these cases the court will neither deny nor grant the motion. It simply refuses to rule. I was personally present in one court room when the judge threw a tantrum and walked off the bench when the defendant respectfully demanded that the judge rule on the motion before the court proceed. Obviously, this motion puts the "white hot spotlight of truth" on the real nature of the courts and the judges don't like that one bit. To date, we have not had one single judge rule that our premise is in error and the courts are not Nisi Prius! Secondly, if you submit a motion to dismiss based on a lack of any act of assumptsit, the court will simply rule that there is adequate evidence to proceed against you. But please note that the court is only ruling that there is sufficient evidence to support the government's contention that you violated the code. The court skillfully attempts to evade the issue raised in the motion which is that there is no evidence that you are a person subject to the code in the first place. How can you be tried for violating a section of a code if you're not subject to the code at all in the first place? If you explain to the court that it has NOT YET addressed the issue raised in the motion, the court will say, "I have already ruled on motion. Let's move on." If you press the court, the judge will threaten you with a contempt ruling. Once again, it is obvious that the court wishes to dodge this fundamental issue in order to seize, and maintain, jurisdiction where none truly exists. When a court assumes jurisdiction merely for the sake of doing so, all proceeding from that point forward are void and unenforceable. However, where do we go for safety and relief from this type of predatory court? That has been the problem since the common-law courts were illegally eradicated. Read Gail's remarks and the attached HTML file to see how one group is effectively trying to break the back of this problem in Oklahoma! Sincerely, Dave Champion -----Original Message----- From: Gail Meador [SMTP:dmeador@poncacity.net] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 4:33 PM To: Dan Meador; Teaparty Subject: Finally! Someone hitting them where they live!!!!!! Three or four months ago when Pat Patton made a presentation on the Federal income tax, he began by saying, "I'm tired of trying to impress 'them' with how smart I am." Simply restated, "Let 'them',", whoever them is, "tell us the law." Those who have followed my running account are aware that we "engaged" several old cases in late December and into the spring of this year. One way or another, three of us wound up with all five judges in our judicial district involved in one or more of eight cases. On August 4, we served notice that we intend to pursue removal via impeachment, writ of quo warranto or otherwise. At the docket hearing on August 13, the district court judge informed us that all judges in our judicial district had recused themselves from all cases involving any of the three of us. There has been no response to our notice, so they have effectively defaulted to allegations. The notice is posted on the Law Research & Registry web site: http://www.LawResearch-Registry.org/ Look on the documents registry page. In order to pursue impeachment, a writ of quo warranto, etc., we would be in somewhat the position patriots have been in in the past ... the constructive argument. But unlike the past, we now know enough about the law to hammer away effectively. But we don't want to have to put on a dog and pony show, so we're going to let someone in judicial ranks tell us what the law is, and implications of what judicial officers have engaged in. Today we filed the attached ex parte class action setting out a list of particulars for declaratory disclosure. The ruling, which someone other than judges in our judicial district will have to make, should give us solid footing when we pursue removal of the five judges. Tim McCrory is straightening up the heading, and will post the petition on the LR&R web page tonight or tomorrow. I apologize for the way the heading collapses when I convert to HTML. Hopefully we've asked most of the questions that have been plaguing the patriot community. Dan Meador begin 600 Class Declaratory.html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` end