Welcome to the first "official" installment of the Frog Farm. The purpose of the Frog Farm is to discuss issues which involve a Free People and their Public Servants, and how to deal with the various problems that can arise between a free person who exercises and demands rights and errant public servants who exceed the scope of their powers. These include: The Rights of Man and subsequent obligations The nature of the contract for government The right of liberty The Constitutions and their Amendments Supreme Court Decisions The Money Issue - Real Money v Imaginary Debt Taxes and Licensing Republic v Democracy Barter and Trade v Commerce and Traffic Various types of Jurisdiction And the PRIMARY TOPIC, ABOVE, BEHIND AND THROUGH ALL THESE OTHERS, IS: Defending one's rights in the courts Questions and constructive criticism are welcomed. Note that humor, philosophy or other such interesting things are welcome as well. If you wish, you may send encrypted mail via PGP. The public key is at the end of this installment. This installment consists of three pieces: 1) Notes from a business law text on the Uniform Commercial Code with comments by transcriptionist 2) Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law 3) A sample case in rough outline If you know of a possible provider for a "real" list server, please send mail! My supply of material and willingness to discuss it are plentiful; my available time and volume capability are far lower. until next time, laissez faire... ** notes from Business Law: Uniform Commercial Code, 11th ed.,Ronald A. Anderson all emphasis from transcriptionist the original contract for government is the constitution. all the others are ones that you were probably forced or pressured into "voluntarily" signing, unless by some rare stroke of fortune, you have never signed anything in your life, and your parents never signed anything for you. barring that, how do you nullify contracts with government (or with anyone, for that matter) when you realize you have been a victim of fraud? the answer: you must be the Idiot who finally comes to his senses. "11:10. INSANE PERSONS. An insane person lacks capacity to make a binding contract. The contract of an insane person is either voidable or void. In order to constitute insanity...the party must be so deranged mentally as to not understand that a contract is being made OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IS DONE. IF A PARTY LACKS SUCH UNDERSTANDING, THE CAUSE OF THE MENTAL CONDITION IS IMMATERIAL." so you don't have to be insane in the clinical sense of the word - by law, the only indicia of insanity is that you are mentally incapable of understanding the effects of signing the contract. "(a) Effect of Insanity. An insane party may generally avoid a contract in the same manner as a minor. Upon the removal of the disability, that is, upon becoming sane, the former insane person may either ratify or disaffirm the contract. If the insane person dies, a personal representative or heirs may also affirm or disaffirm the contract." now when you suddenly realize that you don't want this contract, what are the mechanics of voiding it? let's start out with the alleged ratification of the contract. these weird looking guys in suits are sending you threatening letters, making harrassing phone calls, and generally making your life hell. naturally, your first reaction is to find out what authority or right they have to do all this, since if they can't show you any, they're liable for prosecution and damages. even if they're telling the truth when they say they work for the government (and their actions would certainly seem to suggest the opposite), if they exceeded their jurisdiction (authority, limits of power), they lose their "immunity from prosecution". so you need to ask them: where is the contract, and when did i sign it, and is that really my signature, and was i sane at the time, or maybe a minor and my parents did it without even consulting me -- and EVEN IF IT IS VALID, i don't believe i was made aware of all those terms and conditions i see in the fine print, and given the nature of this contract, that's pretty clear evidence of fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, now doesn't it? "12.5. FRAUD. Fraud is the making of a false statement of fact with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless indifference as to its truth, with the intent that the listener rely thereon, and the listener does so rely and is harmed thereby...When one party to the contract is guilty of fraud, the contract is voidable and may be set aside by the injured party." "(a) Misstatement of Fact. A misstatement of a past or present fact is an element of fraud...An intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction between the parties is fraudulent. "(b) Mental State. The speaker must intend that the other party rely upon the statement which is false." as far as these are concerned, it's obvious that: 1) the government ALWAYS needs more money, so the more people they can get to join them, the better, and 2) they're ALWAYS willing to lie through their teeth to get people to join. Read Vic Lockman, "Social Security: The Crumbling Fraud". also the NO-SS.DOC file for a more detailed explanation of the fraud, and an example of an affidavit which rescinds the contract. "2. Misstatement of Opinion or Value. Ordinarily, a misstatement of opinion or value is not regarded as fraudulent, on the theory that the person hearing the statement recognizes, or should recognize, that it is merely the speaker's personal view, and not a statement of fact...IF, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT, IN MAKING A STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE, HAD KNOWLEDGE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF WHICH SHOWED THAT SUCH EXPECTATIONS COULD NOT BE REALIZED, THE STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE EXPECTATIONS CAN BE HELD FRAUDULENT. Thus, a statement that a business would make a stated profit in the future is actionable when the speaker knows that on the basis of past events, such prediction was false." did they lie to you about the soundness of the system to get you to join? damn straight, and they knew it. public servants are split about 50/50 on this. Half of them know perfectly well that it's a ripoff and an unsound system; the other half are totally ignorant. "3. Misstatements of the Law. ...Ordinarily, the listener is regarded as having an opportunity of knowing what the law is...equal to that of the speaker, so that the listener is not entitled to rely on what the speaker says. [However] when the speaker has expert knowledge of the law, OR CLAIMS TO HAVE SUCH KNOWLEDGE, the misstatement of law can be the basis for fraud liability." it's generally held that ignorance of the law is no excuse. but these people are your government! they wouldn't lie to you, would they? so of course you trusted them! not only that, but isn't it generally accepted that the government knows FAR more about the law than any of us peons (slaves)? and don't most people operate on that assumption whenever they sign anything? no wonder they're bound by so many contracts. "(c) Investigation Before Relying on Statement. If the listener had available the ready means of determining the truth of the statement...the listener is not entitled to let that opportunity pass...as a limitation on this rule, however, some courts hold that negligence of the injured party is not a bar to damages when the wrongdoer takes active steps to conceal the truth...in any case, if an examination by the plaintiff would not have revealed a particular defect or condition, either because it is not visible, OR BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE MATTER, OR IF A SIMPLE EXAMINATION COULD NOT BE MADE, the injured party may rely on the statements of the other party, and raise the issue of fraud upon learning that the statements were false. A misrepresen- tation made to present further inquiry also constitutes fraud." most people would say that the law is a very technical matter; others would disagree. the only thing that matters is that at the time, you probably got real worried at the thought of having to research and confirm everything you were being told. lord knows, it's taken people a loooong time to figure out.. it certainly takes more than a "simple" examination! "12:6. UNDUE INFLUENCE. An aged parent may entrust all business affairs to a trusted child; an invalid may rely on a nurse; a client may follow implicitly whatever an attorney recommends. The relationship may be such that for all practical purposes, the one person is helpless in the hands of the other. When such a confidential relationship exists, it is apparent that the [first party] IS NOT IN FACT EXERCISING FREE WILL IN MAKING A CONTRACT SUGGESTED BY THE [second party], BUT IS MERELY FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE OTHER PERSON." this is most often the case when parents make contracts for minors, since under normal circumstances, minors may not make valid, binding contracts. in this day and age (circa 1992), most parents sign their children up for Social Security before they're five minutes out of the womb! and it doesn't matter even if you're old enough to walk and talk, you're STILL just doing what you're told and not asking questions. "Because of the great possibility that the person dominating the other will take unfair advantage, the law presumes that the dominating person exerts undue influence upon the other person WHENEVER THE DOMINATING PERSON OBTAINS ANY BENEFIT FROM A CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DOMINATED PERSON." if you didn't have a Social Security number, your parents couldn't claim you as a tax deduction. how many other benefits and privileges do they derive from entering you into these contracts? not to mention the obvious hassle from bureaucrats they can avoid just by signing those papers - who can blame them, given the hassle you're getting now just for asking questions and trying to determine these people's lawful authority? in any case, they DEFINITELY derive numerous and substantial benefits from having you move along in the same direction as the rest of the herd.. "[the] essential element of undue influence is that the person making the contract DOES NOT EXERCISE FREE WILL." how the heck can someone exercise free will regarding something when they don't understand it, their legal guardian is forcing them into it, and they're too young to legally avoid it even if they DO understand it? my parents got me my social security number when i was about 8 or 9 years old. i remember standing in the office with my father, listening to him explain "how the system worked"; namely, that every time i worked, they'd take a little bit out and save it for me, and when i was old, i'd have something to live off of. of course, i know NOW that it was all lies, and even HE probably didn't know it then, but at the time -- hell, do you think your parents would lie to you? even if you don't trust the government (and most kids instinctively don't), you STILL probably trust your parents. at least until you hit puberty... "12:7. DURESS. A person makes a contract under duress when there is such violence or threat of violence that the person is deprived of free will, and makes the contract to avoid harm." i'll point out the obvious here...namely, that ALL law is backed up with the threat of force. the government told you it was required by law (a lie), that you had to have an SS number in order to legally work (another lie), and that it was AGAINST THE LAW to NOT have a number if you wanted to work (the biggest lie of all). ergo, you were under the impression that if you DIDN'T join, they would punish you severely, just like a robber or a murderer. "If a contract is made under duress, then the resulting agreement is voidable at the victim's election." if you were forced into it, you can get out of it. "(b) Economic Duress. The economic pressure on a contracting party may be so great that it will be held to constitute duress. Economic duress occurs when the victim is threatened with irreparable loss for which adequate recovery could not be obtained by suing the wrongdoer." don't they always tell you that the system is there to give you financial security? don't they spin grim tales about what happens to folks who DON'T join, like the canonical old-ladies-eating-Alpo? don't they make you scared out of your wits that if you don't join, you'll end up poor and starving? this would actually fall more under misstatement of fact, above, but it's something to think about. okay, that's the why, what about the how? the remedies for fraud are rescission, action for damages, or reformation of the contract by a court. we won't concern ourselves with that last one -- why bother trying to turn manure into gold? as for damages, they're all fine and dandy, but the REAL goal is to get these idiots to leave you alone, and keep them from damaging you in some way. RESCISSION is just you saying, "I take it back; I revoke my signature; it is as if I had never signed it." "12:8. REMEDIES. ... "(a) Rescission. If the contract is voidable, it can be rescinded or set aside by the party who has been injured or of whom advantage has been taken. IF NOT AVOIDED, THE CONTRACT IS VALID AND BINDING..." in other words, you have to do it AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. "When a contract is voidable, the right to rescind the contract is lost by any conduct that is inconsistent with an intention to avoid it. For example, when a party realizes that there has been a mistake, BUT CONTINUES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE RIGHT TO AVOID THE CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE IS LOST. Likewise, it is generally held that a contract, although procured by duress, may be ratified by the victim of the duress, as by ADHERING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, OR MAKING CLAIMS TO BENEFITS ARISING THEREFROM. The right to rescind the contract is lost if the injured party, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, AFFIRMS THE TRANSACTION, or when, with such knowledge, the injured party FAILS TO OBJECT TO THE GUILTY PARTY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. In determining whether a reasonable time has expired, the court considers WHETHER THE DELAY BENEFITED THE INJURED PARTY, whether a late avoidance of the contract would cause unreasonable harm to the guilty party, and whether avoidance would harm intervening rights of third persons acquired after the original transaction." so the minute you figure out the fraud, from that moment on, watch your steps VERY carefully. don't cash any checks the government may "give" you, don't accept ANYTHING from them. just keep quiet, and research the daylights out of your case, and don't give them any hassles. lay low until you've got your case completely written out and planned ahead for as many possible contingencies as you can imagine. if they object, one of your lines of defense can be that you knew that it was fraud, but that was ALL you knew; therefore, you didn't have "full knowledge of the facts". you had to do years of research to uncover all the facts you needed to PROVE that fraud. "When the contract has resulted in the transfer of property from the guilty party to the victim, the latter also loses the right to rescind if, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE SITUATION, the victim RETAINS AND USES the property, SELLS IT TO ANOTHER, or USES IT AFTER THE GUILTY PERSON REFUSES TO TAKE IT BACK." money is property. so again, DON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING from them! ** Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law Short Research by Nombrist Beor/Paul Campbell 5455 Gull Road, Suite #142 Kalamazoo, MI 49001 History Peviously, the sovereign was the king, introduced to England by William the Conqueror. He had both the power of jurisdiction overall others as well as being effectively outside any jurisdiction. He held the power in the country. Everyone else was a subject to his sovereign power. After the Revolution in this country, the States were sovereign until the illegal ratification of the Constitution. At that power, the sovereignty rested with the people. This unique position also left no one to be subject to the sovereigns. They were equals as long as they did not contract away their rights as sovereigns. They gave up a very minor list of rights only in order to protect their other rights. [see Chisholm v. State of Georgia, GA, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 455, 1 L.Ed. 440. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 943.] "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects.. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472. Later, when some individuals decided to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, they became subjects of government, which was subject to the sovereigns. Today, in combination with phony legislation, stupid judges, petty bureacrats, and imagined benefits along with massive public deception, especially by the public schools, I hear cries of "But the government can't operate and protect us if we are not juristic persons and at its every beck and call." I myself am still at it's beck and call at the time of this writing. My parents made me a ward of the state by their license to procreate, and further entered me into contract with the Department of Commerce with a birth certificate, and made me give full power of attorney to the Department of Health and Social Services via Social Security Insurance. I am currently less than 6 months from becoming the age of majority, and some changes are going to be had around here. Definition The words "sovereign people" are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691. After that, things get complicated, because the European definition doesn't quite fit with the ones used now. The sovereignty rests with the state, when the state is a group of people. The United States is a sovereign only so far as a representative of its citizens in international dealings. Suffice to say that you are sovereign, but you grant the state sovereignty over you only in the limited cases listed in the Constitution, and when it steps outside those bounds, it is no longer sovereign (able to govern) over you. The Yick Wo case listed first below sums it up best. "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356. "Sovereignty" in government to that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated is relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is "sovereignty". By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 28 P.2d. 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1. "Sovereignty" is a term used to express a supreme political authority of an independent state or nation. Whatever rights are essential to the existence of this authority are rights of sovereignty. The rights to declare war, to make treaties of peace, to levy taxes, and to take property for public uses, termed the "right of eminent domain," are all rights of sovereignty. In this country this authority is vested in the people, and is exercised through the joint action of the federal and state governments. To the federal government is delegated the exercise of certain rights or powetrs of sovereignty, and with respect to sovereignty, "rights" and "powers" are synonymous terms; and the exercise of all other rights of sovereignty, except as expressly prohibited, is reserved to the people of the respective states, or vested by them into their local government. When we say, therefore, that a state of the Union is sovereign, we only mean that she possesses supreme political authority, except as to those matters over which such authority is delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 218, 79 Am. Dec. 123. Goverment is NOT the Sovereign There are a lot of cases that refer to the sovereign powers of the United States or the states themselves and some even construe this limited power as not just acting in a sovereign capacity, but as a sovereign itself. This is only true so long as it is acting in its sovereign capacities. The "sovereign powers" of a government include all the powers necessary to accomplish its legitimate ends and purposes. Such powers must exist in all practical governments. They are the incidents of sovereignty, of which a state cannot divest itself. Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309. In all governments of constitutional limitations "sovereign power" manifests itself in but three ways. By exercising the right of taxation; by the right of eminent domain; and through its police power. United States v. Douglas-Willan Sartoris Co., 22 P. 92, 96. 3 Wyo. 287. The term "sovereign power" of a state is often used without any very definite idea of its meaning, and it is often misapplied. Prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, the states were sovereign in the absolute sense of the term. They had established a certain agency under the Articles of Confederation, but this agency had little or no power beyond that of recommending to the states the adoption of certain measures. It could not be properly denominated a government, as it did not possess the power of carrying its acts into effect. The people of the states, by the adoption of the federal Constitution, imposed certain limitations in the exercise of their powers which appertain to sovereignty. But the states are still sovereign. The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the people, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state governments. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 943. "Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority or rule." Brandes v. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657 Ariz 349. "Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1. The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a seperate personal entity, and as such it does not posssess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament. Filbin Corporation v. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914. Agents of the government "Sovereignty" is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity than as private citizens. Chisholm v. State of Georga, Ga., 2. U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440. Hale doctrine: The Difference between corporations and sovereigns "If, whenever an officer of employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights." "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers..." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 279. Pitfalls for the sovereign individual Since you don't want to be a juristic person, you can't make claims or dmands under administrative law, including USC Title 5, only under the at law jurisdiction, except of course when you are demonstrating to the court that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative law. This means avoiding terms such as taxpayer like the plague. The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. -- 26 USC 7701 A(1)(14) The worst thing you could do is claim yourself a citizen of the United States, instantly placing you under the jurisdiction of the United States via the 14th Amendment. Equally bad is declaring yourself a resident of a state, which means a foreign agent temporarily residing in the state for the purposes of trade, regulated under the admiralty jurisdiction and the Uniform Commercial Code. The Privacy Act grants 4th Amendment privileges to such juristic persons. States and state officials acting officially are held not to be "persons" subject to liability under 42 USCS section 1983. Wills v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 105 L.Ed. 2nd 45 (1989). The reason for this is that they were acting in capacity of the sovereign. The sovereign is not that same as "person" as used in the laws. "Sovereign person" would be ambiguous. Try to stay with "sovereign" or "sovereign individual" to avoid this. Statutes employing the word "person" are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign. 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 -- Def. of "person" Except for the all but nonexistant common lawyer, lawyers are also a bad thing. This is because they can't claim a lot of your rights for you and because by their own oath, their first commitment is to the government, not you. For example, while using a lawyer, you can't claim the right not to incriminate yourself under the 5th amendment. Also, by using a representative, you are declaring yourself incompetent in your legal affairs; also, that you have an unnatural (juristic) personality that must be "represented". You will hear that "he who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- but you will not represent yourself -- you will DEFEND yourself, in your own natural person! "The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate hmself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were the agent of such person." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. For further consideration While it is understood that unless we hold United States citizenship or live within the District of Columbia, we are not citizens of the United States, this makes our presence in Courts of the United States (such as a Court of Chancery, aka a Court of Equity, aka an Admiralty Court) a rather interesting one. Consider this: A foreign sovereign power must in courts of United States be assumed to be acting lawfully, the meaning of "sovereignty" being that decree of the sovereign makes law. Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 28 F.Supp. 279, 281. The very meaning of "sovereignty" is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047. "Sovereignty" means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree. Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903. And you, as a sovereign individual, are certainly "foreign" to courts of the United States! SOVEREIGN The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid concept. "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 ================================================================= The second paragraph below contains a strong statement of the sovereignty of the people. The section is what is known as the "Brown Act" or "secret meeting law" (California Government Code). ---------------------- Chapter 9 MEETINGS Section 54950. Declaration, intent; sovereignty. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.) ** Things to Think about and take care of in a typical case: (partial list) The act or omission in question: Is it declared by law to be a crime? Research the law/code/ordinance The victim: Who? What Life, Liberty or Property was harmed? Is the person Natural or Juristic? Is he At Law, or in Equity? Is the person competent to testify? The complaint: Verified by affidavit signed by victim? If no victim, serve & file constructive notice on gov't agent and judge Ten days later, file Suit Grand jury indictment/information Grand Jury represents the People District Attorney = The State Object to prosecution by information, Demand Grand Jury Indictment. Warrant - Made out for the party arrested? Check spelling-Joe Blow is not Jo Bloe! Signed by a judge? Check "judge's" Oath of Office/compare with required oath in Constitution Arrest - You have the right to remain silent You have the right to counsel present Not required to give fingerprints [Davis v. Mississippi] Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning Writ of Habeas Corpus Arraignment - Starts calendar for speedy trial Appear specially, not generally Demand all rights at all times Disclaim equity jurisdiction Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning Demand to see a verified complaint - Must be sworn to by complainant within 15 days of Notice to Appear Must have the seal of the court Defendent cannot understand charges without counsel Demand counsel of choice Object to denial by judge Cite cases File written Demand for Counsel of Choice If judge appoints Public Defender, object! You have to talk with Public Defender before you can accept him as counsel. You cannot relate to him. You have no confidence in him You cannot be forced to employ counsel beholden to your adversary Stand "mute" Judge will enter "Not guilty" plea Object! Let the record show that defendant stands mute File "Arraignment & Plea" File Demand for Plaintiff to Show Constraining Need or in the Alternative to Dismiss File Demand for Jury Trial in which the jury decides both the law and the facts At Law File Notice of intention to tape record the proceedings per Rule 980(f) "unless otherwise ordered for cause" File Demand for court reporter to take transcripts at all hearings File Demand for transcripts of all proceedings File Demand for Evidentiary Hearing File/serve Declaration-Petition for Redress of Grievances The Preliminary (Evidentiary)Hearing Appear specially, not generally Claim all rights at all times Challenge jurisdiction ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS Demand formal, verified complaint You intend to challenge jurisdiction but you need counsel to adequately argue jurisdiction Appearing pro per, not pro se Get judicial notice of demand for counsel of choice and supporting brief Get judicial determination for the record that the court is denying unfettered counsel of choice [final judgement on the matter] Demand that hearing be postponed so that denial of counsel may be appealed to higher court Does court honor demand for rights sua sponte? Demand that the court prove both agency's and court's jurisdiction on the record. "Jurisdiction cannot be assumed & must be decided" Maine v. Thiboutot 100S.Ct.2502 (1980) "Jurisdiction cannot be presumed" Smith v. McCullough 46S.Ct.338(1926) Examine/cross-examine witnesses Discovery:File/serve Demand Suppression hearing file Demand to Supress Evidence Formulate jury instructions They must have foundation in the record in the Evidence Exhibits in the Testimony of Witnesses Formulate questions for witnesses For Cross-exam For Direct exam Keep Proposed Jury Instructions in mind Subpoena Witnesses Expert witnesses Gov't agents Witnesses at scene of arrest Alibi Motion [Demand] Hearing Give equity disclaimer/Demand rights Challenge ensign v. flag Give Miranda/Title 18 warning File Constructive Notice Demand Counsel of choice File paper Demand Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction File jurisdiction briefs on Status, Status of Citizens, Merchant At Law, Rights, Memorandum of Law, Equity, The Monetary System Demand Rights Sua Sponte File paper Demand jury trial w/12 jurors File Notice & Demand Jury Selection Questions for Jurors Prosecution's Opening Statement Defense Opening Statement (may wait) Prosecution Examines Witnesses Object! Object! Object! Defense Cross-examines Defense may testify Not required to take Oath Prosecution Closing Statement Prosecution rests Defense challenges Prima Facie Case Code Pleading Defense moves for directed verdict of aquittal Defense Opening Statement if delayed Defense Examines Witnesses Prosecution cross-examines Object! Object! Object! Defense Closing Statement Defense rests Prosecution 2nd Closing Statement Judge's Instuctions to Jury Object! Object! Object! Jury Deliberations Jury Verdict Defense Motion for Verdict of Aquittal Notwithstanding Jury Verdict Motion for New Trial if appropriate Notice of Appeal Demand for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Order If denied, file Writ of Habeas Corpus Demand for transcripts at gov't expense Proposed statement on Appeal Use court's form as a cover sheet Fill blanks with "see Proposed Settled Statement [Attached] Don't put signature on form Prosecution's Amendments Defense Revised Proposed Statement Settlement conference Opening Brief on Appeal Prosecution's Rebuttal to above Prosecution's Opening Brief Defense rebuttal Defense Closing Brief Originally from Frog Farmer on the Garbanzo Citadel. ** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.2 mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7 zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t aS51cz4= =WIMt -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --