1. The USD and Stocks continue to power up, with Crude now catching a bid on a breakout of old highs
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Thur Morning GIM! Gold is up this am 6.7 to 1240, while Silver is up 4 to 17.99. Crude is up 68 to 5427. The USD is up 12 to 101.32.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 2/17/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1239.10-- Silver $18.03-- Oil $53.78-- USD $100.95 -- Based on near term futures contract--- At JMB Current price AGE 2017 $1304.51 (1), SAE $21.15 (20)

Contempt of Court and you, me and the man inside the moon.

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by michael59, Nov 30, 2016.



  1. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Like the title insinuates contempt of court can take wild swings of subject matter. Like did you know that contempt of court is actually considered common law? Sure I know what you are thinking court is rooted in common law but applied administratively. Well contempt will get you duly convicted with just you arguing with the judge. Yeah, no trial zilch-nada and there you are doing thirty days or more or less. And, all this might depend on whether there is a rabbit in the moon or man, it doesn't matter. Contempt of court is so common law that you, and I can be made to testify against ourselves and the fifth amendment be dammed. Really.

    The first case law here in this land was in 1906(¿) You can find it as SHIPP. This is the case where the US Supreme Court arrested Chattanooga' s Sheriff and a few deputies and a few from the lynch mob. And, they had to self incriminate. This case started federalism. Ok, so they hanged a convicted rapist on a bridge who cares? What they should have cared about was the bring the body here order, but instead they offed him. (Chattanooga, not sure if this is the right town) seems the supreme court wanted Johnson alive not dead. Now what happened in Tennessee is rather unimportant other that what happened in DC.

    The resulting trial should show any one that once you are in contempt things change immediately. Take me, I was I thought at a hearing and the administrative law judge admitted he had turned the fine over to collections. So.....um, let me start at the beginning.

    There is this guy who had two horses. One of the horses got sick. Seems there was tansy rag wort in the hay. So this guy had one well fed horse and one sick horse. Then along came county animal control and poof this guy is brought into court. Court goes as expected and guy is fined. Guy never pays the fine, guy still has not paid the fine.

    Six years later cop runs guys name and steals him. Guy does 96 hours on a 48 hour hold. Guy gets released with document stipulating he is under arrest and all that goes with such things as that. That impairment thing has a list of 22 things he could not do, along with a be hear at this time order.

    Guy is there at that time and the ALJ immediately starts running its mouth behind guys back while the guy is writing "without prejudice." Guy wheels around and asks "Is this going on, you really want do do this this way, so it's started?" Guy is told to sit down, guy tells the bonehead no. Guy tells bonehead he is not there to contract with the fiction. Guy tells bonehead that guy is not a client of the state of Oregon.

    Bonehead rambles on and says "I turned this over to collections." There it was, the ALJ gave away the state's plenary power. Guy challenges jurisdiction. ALJ rambles on about being appointed then voted in as judge. Guy tells bonehead (and I shit you not I actually said) I told him "Whether or not you wear pink panties or not is not the question or the challenge, the challenge is where is the paper where this human gave you jurisdiction over him. Where is that paper with his and your signature on it granting you jurisdiction?" And, he went looking for it.

    What happened next was he told me that the paper in question was at the courthouse. He or rather I almost screwed up but I persevered and told him NO he had to have it, had to have it right there. He kept blathering on and poof, duly convicted of the crime of contempt of court. Cop comes in Michael is arrested read his Miranda and off to jail.

    Michael does 27 straight days on a 30, now those 27 along with the previous 4 equates to 31 in aggregate on that 30. Yeah and one would think it is all over now, but that is not reality. As of the 22nd of this month there was mailed to me, with my name in lower case letters a summons to appear as defendant for the crime of contempt of court. I received it Friday after Thanksgiving. And, I burn; I burn so bad I can't think. Same numbers same charge, in fact it is like nothing has ever happened. Enough with the fuck my life tit whining and on to the anomalies.

    You will notice that when I went to court on August 18 2016 that I never plead in out, nothing. When I was doing the signature thing it was 10:55 when I was getting the cuffs slapped on it was 11:02.
    When I challenged jurisdiction by asking for that "paper" I inadvertently sent the thing chasing his own tail and he admitted that by that paper being at the court house he showed that I was not standing in court, nor was he. Court was ... I guess court was at the courthouse. These two things are important, the fact that he did not understand jurisdiction tion and the fact he showed there was no court that day as far as the plea, why that's debatable.

    It's debatable because if it is jurisdictional as in "all ready" judged and I or you have not satisfied that aspect then there is failure to comply but here it is called contempt. Thing is some one else or some thing moves the court, then there is acting like a monkey. Usually it is someone moves the thing. In my predicament this thing is moving on its own, there are no keys in my pocket. There are no keys in my pocket for the jail cell because I cannot prosecute myself and you likewise cannot prosecute yourself. Now as far as no court that day, now that is priceless just on its own.

    Now boom I do the time, cool done; right? Wrong!
    Like I intimated afore hand this contempt thing is old, old common law. In fact it is called a matter of authority here in the bounds of Oregon and no other court can challenge it. This means it is not vacated upon appeal, it is not found to be inconsistent and against any constitution which would state you have a right to trial and there by you can have it stricken or vacated as unlawful. In fact as I found out there need not be a jury or prosecutor or a court or a moving party and most of all and very important you can be tried multiple times for the same thing.

    All the above flies in the face of reason and reason actually equates with law. So the BIG question is how to defeat it? As stated earlier contempt of court is common law. As common law it seems it has to be defeated that way. Now every one should understand that the or a court is a dead old thing and just like laws it lays in Wait. What I am conveying is that it does not move on its own. In my case it seems to be but these words should make sense: if it please the court I move that it.... I used to think that, those words were directed at the ALJ but they are not. The ALJ just inhabits or lives in this dead thing. Sorry, always wanted to see that thought strung together. So as a dead thing that can do nothing, and as ancient as common law it is those that move this thing that must be defeated. And, in my case it is this incompetence must be proved. The only way I can see to effect this defeat is through questions.

    You see, as I see it common law puts me on the same footing as the thing that inhabits the court. And, as in that SHIPP contempt trial, yes the only case of its kind unique to US Supreme court if there is no fifth amendment for me then there is NONE for the ALJ. Big problem is I/you are the one being held in....held, placed, secreted, so it becomes question and answer time. I ask the questions as points of clarification and upon being answered the ALJ enters testimony against his lawless acts there by showing incompetence. Incompetence breeds removal. Sure, sure the removal will not avail me any satisfaction of remedy because I am in something that cannot be remedied, I am trapped in a dead thing. Talk about your twilight zone.

    Now as and you should know because I realize this, as I am in uncharted understandings "so is the ALJ." This means the tables can be flipped. Recesses can be halted and the ALJ made to sit till he poops his panties. IF he gets up and leaves then he abandons or rather he flees and I get to pass judgment. You see this is common law. Also I have one goal I am striving to put this court thing in and that is to get the ALJ to realize what he is engaged in.

    It is something based in vendetta which he is not allowed to do and by gollie he has been doing it, he has up to now been a willing participant in something he is forbidden to do. This thing will get him removed.

    Well that's it in a long winded nut shell, every thing I know about contempt of court. Oh, there is one other thing.

    It is a curious affair that every document, paper, instrument that I have always has this or another court' name slightly different. So far I have four variations of this court and two of the STATE. Like I said curious, curious indeed.
     
    TAEZZAR and BarnacleBob like this.
  2. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,929
    Likes Received:
    9,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Question... why is the system set up with legal fictions in the first place? Because the USA is a corporation?

    Why is it set up as a corporation? Why don't they use real courts and law for real people?
     
    TAEZZAR and michael59 like this.
  3. southfork

    southfork Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    12,578
    Likes Received:
    9,686
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have lots of contempt for the corrupt courts today.
     
    TAEZZAR, the_shootist and michael59 like this.
  4. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Not much can be done about corporations being the base line definition of one is, the head may die but the name remains the same and the body keeps operating.

    Real court is all court/$/s.... I have read that vendetta is real law. The eye for an eye and my favorite "the golden rule," why it is sugar coated vendetta. So court was an effort to stop the practice of vendetta. Let's face it there must have been a lot of killing going on back then.

    So court became a way to mitigate something buy using a third party. In these courts one side has say then the other side had say. Then what ever was decided. But you still had your say so basically each side was contracting through a intermediary. This is the common law because it was done this way all over so by inference court goes back many eyawns.

    A fiction cannot contract for itself so it needs a human to move the court. So along comes Mott and Penn in 1640(?) The jury would not find for the court even when instructed to do so. If the jury wouldn't find for the court then they would not find for the King. After this go around the way Mott and Penn is viewed is that it was found you can't harm a fiction, no harm no foul. So even the king had to bow to this practice and he is a King. So how does he get around this?

    His solicitor moves the court to act. Then along comes me and I won't bow. So it's off with my head for contempt and that should be the end of it I would think. But we have administrative courts and we have to have them because fictions never die so the power of contempt rolls over again and again until compliance. Problem is I am not a fiction, and this has been made know so as I found out I had no recourse.

    But then along comes Walley the walleye Thompson and starts it all over again. I mean come on I get thrown in jail without trial, now I'm being charged again on the same charges, and a host of other things. The only thing different is the names of the courts and the date. That and the fact that Walley gave his jurisdiction to a collection agency in order to collect.

    As a matter of contract law the deal between them two things is none of my business. So it is the collection agency that must move the court to find me in contempt. And, this is fine because all case law stipulated in the revised Oregon statutes supports this. Problem is I now have a duly convicted of without the collection agency involved. So the court is moving on its own.

    Now last summer I had a call and the girl was looking for the person MR so I tell here the human by that name is speaking to you BUT she replied no I am looking for the person MR. (Sorry spell check it's MF) So we banterd back and forth and she hung up.

    These person want the person not the man. The court wants the person and not the man. The two are obviously separate.

    Now when the scotus pulled shipp and all in on contempt they prosecuted them as men and not fictions I know this because common law dictates a fiction cannot be harmed and by denying them their fifth amendment rights shows me that only fictions are afforded rights. So person has rights sovighn does not. But sovighn can make the fiction testify as in make testimonies by question because the way common law works. But all this was moot until this ALJ started up the same cause again. This is why the scotus dint go back after shipp, because it left them open to attack on the first common law trial. The scotus would have to answer why they refused or made war against the US CONSTITUTION. Can't have that.

    Anyway my girlfriend told me I was going to jail again. But she is going with me to watch the show anyway. So after the 13th I most likely will be gone for 30 days....most likely more because the PERSON in Columbia County just don't know how to count.
     
  5. Malus

    Malus Gold Chaser Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,378
    Likes Received:
    2,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    irrelevant
    Location:
    In a world gone mad....
    If the common joe can't understand what is written (law/contracts), then its a criminal enterprise meant to enslave and control.....
     
  6. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Letter of admission'''''''
    Greetings Chief Justice Balmer:
    Enclosed you will find a six page letter. This letter is for Wally Thompson. It is self explanatory to me but not to you. I am offering a synopsis.

    A while ago I was thrown in jail for contempt. Wally Thompson effected this through common law after I challenged jurisdiction. As courts in the bounds of Oregon do not hear matters of authority I had no voice. I was willing to accept this fact. But Wally is once again moving this administrative court on his own, again.

    I know Oregon makes a practice of continual contempt but but as Sally has not defeated the challenge he is with out law.

    As Wally used common law contempt to convict me this is all a moot point but as he has revived the court into action he has revived it in common law mode.

    I now reference US Supreme Court v SHIPP. The people in that instance were tried convicted and served their time. This case was also a common law case. Other than a few minor differences both cases are the same except they were never held again for the crime of contempt. Sure Johnson was dead and in the ground but they Shipp never satisfied the writ of habeas corpus. (And I put my name to it)

    Now here is wally the dik headed Thompson letter

    To Wally Thompson

    So, are you hiding behind the state of Oregon now?
    You would use an ORS statute on me?
    Wally do you even know what you are doing?

    page tu

    I ask these questions because these are some things this man is willing to admit.

    I will admit that you said you gave away the state's plenary power via a collection agency.

    I will admit that upon you saying that I challenged jurisdiction.

    I will admit that, that challenge has not been answered.

    I will admit that I can extrapolate from your words that court was not being held on Sept 13, 2016.

    I will admit there was no plea.

    I will admit I was convicted without trial.

    I will admit that I never gave away my right to trial.

    I will admit that I have a paper that does not use the words "in the continuing matter of '15x0079" but instead uses the words "DULY CONVICTED OF the crime of."

    [Don't ask me what is going on with the font]

    I will admit that, that paper which is an impaired contract intimates a period of 30 days.

    I will admit that in aggregate I served 31 days.

    And most importantly I will admit that by convicting me without trial you moved the court into COMMON LAW

    I will admit that I will not move the court out of common law.

    And I will admit I am allowed to bring suit at common law via the united states of America's constitution.

    So Wally you handed me the court. You handed me the keys. You did this by not honoring your impaired contract. And, as this is a much utilized practice inside the bounds of Oregon there is a need for the highest court operating here to visit this no longer a matter of authority but a matter of dishonor which now sits at common law. You see Wally you are ADMinisRATive NOT COMMON LAW SO THIS MATTER IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF CONTEMPT

    [Page 6]

    Further more Wally:

    The latch will stay on the jurisdictional challenge after my witness gives testimony about that challenge and the words you spoke. Also as you have set a time I know you will be free to give testimony. As you should comprehend I will not be a defendant to or in dishonorable things.



    Well there it is, sent yesterday......Now if I can only figure out how to change this font to regular.

    Why is that soooo f'n difficult?
     
  7. mayhem

    mayhem A Different Perspective Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    2,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Dixie
    Code:
    
    Letter of admission'''''''
    Greetings Chief Justice Balmer:
    Enclosed you will find a six page letter.  This letter is for Wally Thompson.  It is self explanatory to me but not to you.  I am offering a synopsis.
    
    A while ago I was thrown in jail for contempt.  Wally Thompson effected this through common law after I challenged jurisdiction.  As courts in the bounds of Oregon do not hear matters of authority I had no voice.  I was willing to accept this fact.  But Wally is once again moving this administrative court on his own, again.
    
    I know Oregon makes a practice of continual contempt but but as Sally has not defeated the challenge he is with out law.
    
    As Wally used common law contempt to convict me this is all a moot point but as he has revived the court into action he has revived it in common law mode.
    
    I now reference US Supreme Court v SHIPP.  The people in that instance were tried convicted and served their time.  This case was also a common law case.  Other than a few minor differences both cases are the same except they were never held again for the crime of contempt.  Sure Johnson was dead and in the ground but they Shipp never satisfied the writ of habeas corpus.  (And I put my name to it)
    
    [B]Now here is wally the dik headed Thompson letter
    
    [FONT=Arial]To Wally Thompson
    
    So, are you hiding behind the state of Oregon now?
    You would use an ORS statute on me?
    Wally do you even know what you are doing?
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Courier New]page tu
    
    [I]I ask these questions because these are some things this man is willing to admit.[/I]
    [/FONT]
    [I][FONT=Verdana]I will admit that you said you gave away the state's plenary power via a collection agency.
    
    I will admit that upon you saying that I challenged jurisdiction.
    
    I will admit that, that challenge has not been answered.
    
    I will admit that I can extrapolate from your words that court was not being held on Sept 13, 2016.
    
    I will admit there was no plea.
    
    I will admit I was convicted without trial.
    
    I will admit that I never gave away my right to trial.
    
    I will admit that I have a paper that does not use the words "in the continuing matter of '15x0079" but instead uses the words "DULY CONVICTED OF the crime of."
    
    [Don't ask me what is going on with the font]
    
    I will admit that, that paper which is an impaired contract intimates a period of 30 days.
    
    I will admit that in aggregate I served 31 days.
    
    And most importantly I will admit that by convicting me without trial you moved the court into COMMON LAW
    
    I will admit that I will not move the court out of common law.
    
    And I will admit I am allowed to bring suit at common law via the united states of America's constitution.
    
    So Wally you handed me the court.  You handed me the keys.  You did this by not honoring your impaired contract.  And, as this is a much utilized practice inside the bounds of Oregon there is a need for the highest court operating here to visit this no longer a matter of authority but a matter of dishonor which now sits at common law.  You see Wally you are ADMinisRATive NOT COMMON LAW SO THIS MATTER IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF CONTEMPT
    
    [Page 6]
    
    Further more Wally:
    
    The latch will stay on the jurisdictional challenge after my witness gives testimony about that challenge and the words you spoke.  Also as you have set a time I know you will be free to give testimony.  As you should comprehend  I will not be a defendant to or in dishonorable things.
    
    
    
    Well there it is, sent yesterday......Now if I can only figure out how to change this font to regular.
    
    Why is that soooo f'n difficult?[/FONT]
    Mayhem says;
    Now you see your post in code mode. I don't know what you want it to look like, but you must have desired it to look like this, or you copied and pasted it into the reply. It can be cleaned up of you understand BB Code. If you understand code, then copy and paste your post into Notepad or any other plain text editor and reformat it. Or remove all the code and paste it into the reply box and reformat it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
    michael59 likes this.
  8. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Ok
    Harmony god that is so gay. The antonym to mayhem is harmony.

    Shit hahababab....wake me up win, when I'm done laughing peace and calm.

    So what does code have to do with it?
     
  9. mayhem

    mayhem A Different Perspective Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    2,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Dixie
    It formats your post. Normally you don't see the code. You need to click on the box in the top right corner to see your post with code.
     
    michael59 likes this.
  10. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Oh, ok. Sorry bout being a dick last night, food and beer and sleep do weird things to me. Kind of like that snikers commercial, all better now.

    So hey everybody listen up I got/have a very important question.
    Question is "what is to prevent me from convening a common law court?"

    I mean come on I'm up on the same charges again, charges I have been duly convicted of? I say fuck um I'm the one with honor now not them.

    I think my girlfriend is right, im going back to jail with a gun stuck in my face, oh well. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I do the "hear ye, hear ye, court of common law is now in session." And, poof it's done.

    Edit: anyone?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  11. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have been listening to Patrick's calls info and one suggestion he makes when going into court is to invoke the law for your state's republic and your stand as a man.

    Link to article below:http://econcurrent.com/devine/files/40-Owner-BountyHuner/I INVOKE the LAW of the Republic rev 1.doc

    I INVOKE the Constitutional LAWS of the Republic Governmental Banking System.

    The American REPUBLIC LAWS, are the only valid form of Governmental JUSTICE Banking in America or the territorial States. Per the first 7 words in the National Constitution preamble, the “People” are the “United States”, they are the true Living and Breathing source of Power; therefore the FACT is; the Government and the Land are NOT the Principal in the United States because they CANNOT operate without the energy of the PEOPLE. This is also supported the Preambles of the Republic Constitutions of each of the Individual States. I am here to Stand-up as an of Age “United States” Grantor and Guarantor, which it is my Republic Right addressed in the Peoples’ - Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution to INVOKE the REPUBLIC LAWS.

    Anyone who denies this Right or the Powers of the Peoples’ Republic Laws, is in a state of INSURRECTION as it is addressed in the 14th Amendment, section 3 and can either be charged or placed under a republic citizen’s arrest until one of the Republic governmental Executive Law Officers arrive to jail them.

    The Trick is that the term “United States” has more than one usage and it is a challenge to get it right:

    1st - as the number one Principal titleUnited State” is the “People”; as the people are the Executive Owners, who are the Grantors and Guarantors standing over the constitutional Republic Labor Banking governments; to fund them and give them the energy and authority to act lawfully.

    2nd – as the “United State” section of American Land, it is a fixture of wealth that has to be harvested by the People.

    3rd – the Constitutional corporate servantUnited State” government is the Peoples’ Republic Form of just Labor public governmental banking.

    4th – the Commercial Foreign Banking Governmental System, which is the Babylonian Copyrighted the “UNITED STATES or STATE OF” are because they Anti-Republic (anti-property ownership) and are operating as Impostures, as a Derivative and Deceptive set of Self-Profiting Foreign Commercial Governmental Court Banks. This is a Hidden Communistic Government in VIOLATION of the Constitution and the INSURRECTIONISTS addressed in the 14th Amendment. Their Hidden Hand is the Biggest Lie in the United States, when they falsely claim to be the Valid Government and then they send their deceived Public Agents in the field to enforce their Property Rapings, False Contractual Trusts, Killings and Controls over the Owners of the United States for their Communistic Commercial SELF Profits with their Article 1, section 10 - Invalid Titles of Office, Documents and Contracts.

    The 4 - VALID Constitutional Article Levels of the “PeoplesRepublic Governmental Just Law Enforcement Labor Banking in America are:

    Article #1 – The Constitutional Republic Legislative – Public Law Enforcement Labor Banking Branch.

    Article #2 – The Constitutional Republic Executive - Public Law Enforcement Labor Banking Branch.

    Article #3 – The Constitutional Republic Courts - Public Law Enforcement Labor Banking Branch.

    Article #4 - The Constitutional Republic People: the Invokers of the Just Laws, Banking Grantors, Banking Bounty Hunters, Banking Examiners and Banking Guarantors as the “People of Ownership of the Republic” - Law Enforcement Labor Banking Branch; which has the final SF-30 jurisdiction over both the Public and Commercial Banking Contracts. When called upon, this Article has been revalidate by the Supreme Court many times in the past 240 years.

    The Challenge to you is to Prove me Wrong!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  12. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    K, before I read all that I find you keep using the word "people."

    Fine, but every thing with a vagina or a dick is under the jurisdiction as person via 14th amendment. Even corporations that can't bleed or experience an orgasm is person. So, might you exsplain who these people are because it is written that in the bounds of this state when there is no victim the people are the victim. But all are person.... Oh darn.

    Look, I'm heading in to call a court of common law into existence as common law was used on me. And, I don't fucking care if the Catholic church dug up a few body's and put them on trial. I just don't care.

    Once a thing is done it is done. Dead is dead. If the administrative boooswah bullshit is stupid it matters not to this man.

    I will not invoke because THAT is practicing religion. I am just gona throw down vendetta and fuck um.
     
  13. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Oh boy? Ok, darn.

    Preamble to the Oregon Constitution
    We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.

    Who is the we in the above preamble? Only answer I can come up with is they are sovereign and that they are a fiction. Fiction because I know not whom they are, yeah it's a grey area. And, this we is sovereigns so say I.

    Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—

    Now I ask who is the we? Sovereigns who formed a social compact OR people who raised their hand invoked God in their support of this Oregon Constitution?
    Notice that all power is inherent in the people.
    Notice that the 14th amendment calls all person.
    Notice who forms a social compact and is equal in right?
    Don't know about you but I dint form a social compact with anyone.
    So I am not a man of equal right nor of common right.
    Now the words ...and instituted for....
    Why is something instituted for me? Why is something instituted for you? And, who is instituting these concepts? Are these the men who have formed a social compact and are of equal right? Now I ponder a concept of "Is this Oregon Constitution actually a administrative General Law showing only the fertile field of which those men of common right can extrapolate law?"

    Is this why I cannot nor you cannot quote this document? Is it because we have not formed a social compact with the others who have?

    Now if any one thinks I'm just blowing bubbles then who or whom is this directed to:

    Section 33. Enumeration of rights not exclusive. This enumeration of rights, and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.—

    What are the "...the others retained by the people?"

    Now I know there is a whole bunch more I can cut and pin on this reply but I think I only need go this far to expound on my questions in this reflective form:

    We the people by forming compact are now delineated as men of common right who have privileges. Those that have privileges also have duties. Those who have duties must honor those duties. To honor that/those duties these men are controlled by their compact. This Oregon Constitution is that compact.

    Now what does this Oregon Revised Statute do or mean?
    All through the ORS ther is used (usually in brackets) [CCP]
    CCP, one of the c's stands for court but the name is not important as to what the CCP does. The COP promulgated the ORS. They revise the ORS. They bring these revisions into the house of representatives and say "vote this in/change this too/delete this from. When this is done this way it show that the ORS is corporational law for these men who have formed a social compact. Sound like hogwash?

    Remember: ..."others retained by the people..." What is retained? Sovereignty is retained. But only by those who have not formed this social compact chaging themselves to men of common right.

    By the above preponderance confusing as it may be I'm thinking these men of common right have in their general law the rights of trial, the rights of jury trial and the rights to plea off those rights in contract.

    But I do not have these rights and I damm sure dint give them any rights over me. But, but I think that by filing the same charges on the same thing that shows an impaired contract carrying the words "duly convicted of..." I now proclaim my sovereign right to suit at common law.

    K, nuff thinking 4 today.
     
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  14. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    8,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    "We the people of the State of Oregon"

    It means what it says! Constitutions are not limitations upon the natural people that inhabit the so called political jurisdiction. "All political power is inherent in the people", "sovereignty resides in the people", etc.... I agree, in these instances "the people" is the .gov.

    "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
    authorities only, not human/creators in accordence with God’s laws, All codes,
    rules and regulations ere unconstitutional and lacking in due process
    *****" -- Rodrigues v United States Department of Labor 769F.2d 1344 (1985) (my emphasis added)

    "In a Republic, the government is the servant of the citizen. In a Democracy, there are no citizens as everyone is the government."

    http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

    All indications indicate that the constitutions state & federal are Trusts in perpetuity.

    "A public office is a public trust" --Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution

    http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/Documents/Ethics/ArticleIISec8.html

    "*****no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.[/B] --Article II, sec 2, U.S. Const. (my emphasis added)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

    Without a trust into perpetuity, protected inheritable property could not legally occur. The trustees are the stewards to the posterities hereditary rights & property.

    "Inheritable Property"

    http://web.archive.org/web/20131208162336/http://www.the-legacy.info/Inheritable Property.html

    A DISCOURSE ON THE
    CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT
    OF THE UNITED STATES

    John C. Calhoun

    http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

    The .govs are chartered as the trustees (officers & emploees) who serve the beneficiaries, i.e. the citizens, inhabitants & residents, etc.....

    "If, whenever an officer or 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 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. --Hale v Henkel, #340, 1906 (my emphasis added)

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/201/43.html
     
  15. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    8,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Trusts by Operation of Law (43)

    Resulting & Constructive Trusts:

    I view the Fourteenth Amendment as a constructive spendthrift trust created by implication of law. In order for one to understand what I just said, a person has to understand what a constructive trust is, a spendthrift trust, and a trust created by operation of law.

    A. A trust by operation of law may exist where an express trust does not exist and it may exist without being created or manifested in writing. It is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor. A trust by operation of law, whether it is a resulting or a constructive trust, is NOT within the statute of frauds NOR the statute of wills, and is not required by that statute to be created or proved in writing(44)

    B. A trust of this kind arises from the fact of "consideration", and not from a written agreement, instrument, or will,..(45)

    C. A trust by operation of law may exist without being created or manifested in writing(46)

    D. A trust by operation of law is based on rule, presumption, or inference of law, and not on expression of intention by the trustor(47)

    A through D are excellent descriptions of the Fourteenth amendment trust. We have never been able to bring Fraud into any suits upon the Government because the Statute of Frauds and Wills is excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment or vice versa. Everything about the amendment is by presumption or inference of law. However; there are rules that govern the trust created by it, and we will get to them shortly.

    Resulting Trusts: 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts

    A. A resulting trust involves primarily the operation of the equitable doctrine of consideration -- the doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest resulting from a transaction.

    B. A resulting trust involves a presumption, implication, or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust.

    C. There is no element of fraud in a resulting trust.

    D. The two most important groups of resulting

    Trusts are:

    1. Those arising on a failure of an express trust or purpose; and

    2. Those arising on a conveyance to one person on a consideration from another.

    What we need to contemplate here is; Is the Fourteenth Amendment a resulting Trust? Is United States citizenship the valuable consideration? Is the "Debt" the valuable consideration? Was the "consideration" separate and distinct from citizenship, such as a Banking agreement? Did the Express Trust Fail in 1868 in order to create a resulting trust? or did it fail in first years of this century? Did it fail at all or was it set up to look as if it did? Was there "no element of fraud" in its creation? The Government may consider the Fourteenth Amendment creating a resulting trust, but I don't personally see it fitting any of the above.

    Constructive Trusts:

    A. A constructive trust generally involves primarily a presence of fraud, in view of which equitable title or interest should be recognized in some person other than the taker or holder of the legal title.

    B. A constructive trust is entirely independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is frequently imposed against the intention of the trustee.

    C. "Otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio, a trust ex delicto, a trust de son tort, an involuntary trust, or an implied trust is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to the intention and in invitum against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive by duress or abuse of confidence by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy".(48)

    D. "A constructive Trust arises only after an act of Fraud or Breach of Confidence or duty and as a relief against the same, it is in substance a state of secondary rights and liabilities growing out of a violation of a primary right and liability hence a constructive trust frequently is classified as a division of adjectival rather than SUBSTANTIVE LAW; and it is said that ground for relief is fraud and not trust.(49)

    Accordingly the 14th Amendment having been created under fraud, established a system that allowed U.S. Citizens to acquire title to property that rightfully they should not hold, and a constructive trust literally turns Tom, Dick, Harry and you into trustees.

    E. "A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression, and when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the Beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee".(50)

    You retain the "beneficial interest" in property Rightfully belonging the Posterity of the Express Trust; therefore you can be converted into a trustee. After all haven't you ever felt that you were the public servant not the IRS agent cornering you. All those government agencies are out to make sure that you, as a quasi trustee are not unjustly enriched. I think they are doing an excellent Job of that.

    ============================================================================

    (43. : 76 Am Jur 2d, Trusts, ''190 and 191; Broadway Bldg. Co. v Salafia, 47 RI 263, 132 A 527, 45 ALR 847.)

    (44. . Whitney v Hay, 181, US 45 L Ed 758, 21 S Ct 537; Smithsonian Institution v Meech 169 US 398, 42 L Ed 793, 18 S Ct 396; Levis v Kengla 169 US 234, 42 L Ed 728, 18 S Ct 309; Ducie v Ford, 138 US 587, 34 L Ed 1091, 11 S Ct 417. Restatement, Trusts 2d '406: "Neither the statute of wills nor the statute of frauds is violated by raising a constructive trust upon a mere promise to create a trust in property not then in existence, where thereafter such property comes into existence and vest in the one who made the promise to act as trustee. Voelkel v Tohulka, 236, Ind 588, 141 NE2d 344, 70 ALR2d 1349, cert den 355 US 891, 2 L Ed 2d 189, 78 S Ct 263. (Do you see why we can't prove fraud? This quote is real interesting, it looks just like the Government to me.) )

    (45. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '194.)

    (46. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

    (47. . 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts '190)

    (48. Am Jur 2d, Trusts '221; Loomis v Loomis 148 Cal 149, 82 P 679; Central Stock & Grain Exch. v Bendinger 109 F 926 cert den 183 US 699, 46 L Ed 396, 22 S Ct 935; Des Moines Terminal Co. v Des Moines U.R. Co. 52 F 2d 616, cert den 285 US 537, 76 L Ed 930, 52 S Ct 311; St Louis & S.F.R.Co. v Spiller 274 US 304, 71 L Ed 1060, 47 S Ct 635; Angel v Chicago, S.P.M & O. R. Co. 151 US 1, 38 L Ed 55, 14 S Ct 240; Monroe Cattle Co. v Becker 147 US 47, 37 L Ed 72, 13 S Ct 217; Felix v Patrick 145 US 317, 36 L Ed 719, 12 S Ct 862; and more.)

    (49. " 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts, '222.)

    (50. Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 225 NY 380, 122 NE 378.)

    http://web.archive.org/web/2013120816355...20Law.html
     
  16. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Ok Bob, I made it all the way to "constructive trust." Now I know what constructive fraud is and I know that there is no law now or ever against constructive fraud. I intimate this because in constructive fraud it is I, individual, dupe...whatever, that must go along with it. This going along with it happens either knowingly or unknowingly.

    Now it takes two to tango but I have no say about the other I do this with be it fiction or a man. And, yet because of this constructivism I am compelled to tango and there fore I am enslaved by it, not by choice though at any point I can acknowledge and submit. So if I don't submit to this construction of fraud or trust then I have shown I will not be a part of it and there fore for all purpose I am not in agreement with it because I know it is fraud. So, so how is this or does this construction occur?

    I am sure it happens when some one different than I places their chains and shackles upon me. When they place their beliefs upon me. When they enslave me with precedent law or case law without a victim. You see the whole presumption of man is to help those who will arrive later in the time line and this is where this construction emimates from.

    And, yet by this construction those that follow are enslaved by that preceding construction.

    So you see this 14th never really did anything and is moot. You see I know this because of what is happening to me.

    I have harmed no one in this matter and a signature upon a promise to pay is predicated on me, myself doing or causing actual harm or injury. I cannot harm a construction as I cannot harm a word or a thought but I can harm property or another man.

    Constitutions trusts or otherwise are not property but are constructions that are used to enslave those that follow. This is accomplished by words. Now if "the people" is constructed to be political subdivisions or states then these constitutions only apply to those who form a social compact. What I am putting forth is those who knowingly bind themselves to it. It is they who operate with in its extrapolated statutes and codes, it is they who form instantaneous contracts, it is they who by their own existence as men calling themself person or otherwise that have enslaved me.

    This is the juncture on which I now stand. I stand casting off the chains that another has placed upon me so that I may come and go freely, so that I may give life to this fourteenth amendment. But this ain't happening because this 14th being a construction, edict even a commandment is just a tool to enslave though by reading it one would think it did the exact opposite with the words it uses.

    Now I know what some will say and I know I'm coming off arrogant but so are those who practice fraud constructive or otherwise. So this tango has been going on from time immortal. I just don't know why I'm supposed to be like them and am bound in chains just because they want to be bound in chains.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  17. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    8,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    It all sounds good until you realize that the so called common law is a farce on its very face. The CL was created as a mirror to the decalog (10 commandments), how did that work out for the indians and/or everyone else?

    "Might makes Right" is the covert law of equity! They have the soldiers, guns & gullags to back up their gum chatter.... I once at a tax hearing had a judge look me straight in the eyes & tell me my argument was absolutely correct (namely me & my property was not within the scope, subject or reach of the tax burden), then he said, "but I'm gonna rule against you, and you may appeal my ruling as an option".

    Later I would learn that over 50% of those locally taxed were being levied & not subject to the burden. If he had ruled in my favor, the tax assessor would have been forced to reassess all of the victims at a substantial loss in revenue to the county. Thats how this crap works in equity & judicial notice.


    "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
    authorities only, not human/creators in accordence with God’s laws, All codes,
    rules and regulations ere unconstitutional and lacking in due process
    *****" -- Rodrigues v United States Department of Labor 769F.2d 1344 (1985) (my emphasis added)
     
    michael59 likes this.
  18. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Yeah common law was practiced on me by the court, hence the 30 days without trial. So I know it is around, what it looks like or how it operates is beyond me as I have never ever come to a situation that I delivered myself into to be judged in it. Till this happened.

    As of now I am formulating a differing plan and while using what I will admit also using what I am not. Maybe this private court just does not understand. But the only way I can do this is to write out as in put to paper swear in to give testimony and no matter what I say about what is written even if I get another contempt for not being allowed to testify my written statement will be there. Even if it is burned I will be heard.
     
  19. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    8,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    You may want to read the short article @ link.

    Snippet:
    Enforcement of Equitable Decrees, Contempt


    Contempt of court is an affront to the dignity of the court. When language forms the basis of contempt the words used must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, (1947) see also In re Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972). Contempt may be either criminal or civil.
    The purpose of criminal contempt is punishment through fine or imprisonment of the contemnor for past conduct. Civil contempt proceedings are for the purpose of coercing compliance with the order of the court and/or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained by defendant's noncompliance. Coercion may be achieved by imprisonment of the contemnor until he purges himself of the contempt, and/or by a prospective, conditional fine. Civil contempt fines may be imposed in an appropriate circumstance either to compensate complainants or as a coercive sanction.


    "Direct" or "Indirect" Contempt?


    When the contempt is in the presence of the court, the judge may act summarily without notice or order to show cause. This requires that the act or omission must occur in the presence of the court so that no further evidence need be adduced for the judge to certify to the observation of the contemptuous behavior and the act must impact adversely the authority of the court. If proof of the contempt depends on evidence from persons other than the judge, then it is an "indirect" contempt and the better practice is to proceed on order to show cause.

    Jury Trial for Contempt


    Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; (see, e.g. Cal.Pen.Code § 166) it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. When serious punishment for contempt is contemplated, a jury trial is Constitutionally required. (Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968).)


    http://www.west.net/~smith/equity.htm
     
  20. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,805
    Likes Received:
    8,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    CONTEMPT OF COURT: Any act calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in the administration of justice, or calculated to lessen its authority or dignity. Contempts are of two kinds: direct and indirect. Direct contempts are those committed in the immediate presence of the court; indirect contempt usually refers to the failure or refusal to obey a court order.

    http://www.open-oregon.com/media-guide/chapter-16-glossary/

    Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure

    Rule 78

    B. Enforcement; contempt. The court or judge thereof may enforce an order or judgment directing a party to perform a specific act by punishing the party refusing or neglecting
    to comply therewith, as for a contempt as provided in ORS 33.010 through 33.150.

    C. Application. Section B. of this rule does not apply to a judgment for the payment of money, except orders and judgments for the payment of suit money, alimony, and money for support, maintenance, nurture, education, or attorney fees, in:

    C.(l) Actions for dissolutions of marriages.
    C. (2) Actions for separation from bed and board.
    C.(3) Proceedings under ORS 108.110 and 108.120.

    D. Contempt proceeding. As an alternative to the independent proceeding contemplated by ORS 33.010 through 33.150, when a contempt consists of disobedience of an injunction or other judgment or order of court in a civil action, citation for contempt may be by motion in the action in which such order was made and the determination respecting punishment made after a show cause hearing. Provided however:

    0.(1) Notice of the show cause hearing shall be served personally upon the party required to show cause.
    0.(2) Punishment for contempt shall be limited as provided in ORS 33.020.
    0.(3) The party cited for contempt shall have right to counsel as provided in ORS 33. 095.

    COMMENT

    This ~Jle was generally
    Section A. is ORS 23.020(1).
    the specific reference to ORS
    taken from exlS~lng ORS sections.
    Section B. is ORS 23.020(2) with
    chapter 33 added.
    Section C. was taken from ORS 23.020.(3). The ORS language
    forbidding punishment by contempt for failure to obey a court "order" was eliminated. If taken literally, it would prohibit
    enforcement of any interlocutory order for payment of money by contempt, e.g., discovery sanctions under Rule 46 or orders under Rule 36 C. See ORC? 67 A. and 68 C.(l)(c).
    Section O. is new and authorizes a motion procedure for contempt, as an alternative to an independent proceeding under ORS chapter 33. The motion practice was the traditional chancery procedure.

    http://counciloncourtprocedures.org/Content/Promulgations/1980_promulgations.pdf

    Judicial Notice:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice
     
  21. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    http://counciloncourtprocedures.org/Content/Promulgations/1980_promulgations.pdf

    There ya go CCP, council (on) court procedures. Notice the word promulgation? Means this council decided poof, handed it to legislature poof, and now it is private corporate law.

    Now for the general law: art 1 sec 12;

    Section 12. Double jeopardy; compulsory self-incrimination. No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence [sic], nor be compelled in any criminal prosecution to testify against himself.—

    Art 1 sec 17:

    Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

    And, I have read the rest of it a couple times and the right to trial has to be signatures away. There is a part about no person shall serve time/incarceration but upon conviction. Or it says no person shall serve involuntary servitude but upon conviction. Either way it intimates slavery is ok but upon conviction only and to be convicted is at trial or pleading with signature of accused acquiescencing.

    So here is the ors. Docket# 15 x 0079, when googled with ors is this. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/33.015

    And, from there it is a rabbit hole among many. Yeah I put the fear of God in the POS. Right when he f'ed up and I challenged. Other than being assertive and me pushing the point he wet his panties. Nothing has changed except I did 31 days in total which in that ORS it is stipulated that day's in incarceration are added to conviction days, didn't happen for me. Oh and on contempt the contempt charge has to carry the original charge with it. So say I'm charged for eating boogers and fined. I don't pay, prosecutor moves court to charge contempt. The booger charge must be listed as the contributory to the contempt. Yeah, there is none of that.

    Nope just that docket number. So you see the only thing that changes is the dates, it is just the same o same o. So this guy must be Catholic and I say this because they are the only ones that I have read of digging up a corpse and putting it on trial.
     
  22. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,942
    Likes Received:
    13,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Tired & Retired as a CNC machine shop owner
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    The best way to hide corruption is through confusion.
    The corrupt court system is a master at confusion !!!
     
    Mujahideen, michael59 and solarion like this.
  23. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Wow talk about using duress in contract. I'll write about it later, but it's contract void. I hate to inform him but now I can tie him and a corporation together. Oh well it's just another day in the neighbor hood.
     
  24. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8,942
    Likes Received:
    13,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Tired & Retired as a CNC machine shop owner
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    This might help.


    duress 2.jpg
     
    michael59 likes this.
  25. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Thanks.

    So, Wally in an open court hearing of contempt actually said "I know nuffing as I gave all the paper work away." He admitted he used a municipal county corporation to come to the aid of a corporation. He brought me in under a contempt warrant of arrest to find my address. And, then he scheduled a contempt of court hearing where he admits he gave away his case's. Then he schedules another contempt of court hearing just to make sure? Oh and to tell me I have to contract with this corporation. I'm like WTF? This corporation has no judgment against me other than they bought bad paper and are trying to collect on it.

    The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.

    Is not the act of not upholding the or a constitution an act of war, and the body of men would be the collective or the aggregate of men so doing? Or am I stretching I there?

    But I know this one is right:

    Section 9. Limitations on powers of county or city to assist corporations. No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, shall become a stockholder in any joint company, corporation or association, whatever, or raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association. Provided, that any municipal corporation designated as a port under any general or special law of the state of Oregon, may be empowered by statute to raise money and expend the same in the form of a bonus to aid in establishing water transportation lines between such port and any other domestic or foreign port or ports, and to aid in establishing water transportation lines on the interior rivers of this state, or on the rivers between Washington and Oregon, or on the rivers of Washington and Idaho reached by navigation from Oregon’s rivers; any debts of a municipality to raise money created for the aforesaid purpose shall be incurred only on approval of a majority of those voting on the question, and shall not, either singly or in the aggregate, with previous debts and liabilities incurred for that purpose, exceed one per cent of the assessed valuation of all property in the municipality. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 13, 1917, and adopted by the people June 4, 1917]

    In that one I only need read the first sentence. Question is; is a thing called a county justice court a municipal corporation? I'm thinking it is.

    Why yes it is:
    Courts in Oregon

    Within its borders, Oregon has four types of courts in the judicial branch:

    • a unified system of state trial and appellate courts, called the Oregon Judicial Department;
    • locally funded, limited jurisdiction municipal courts, county courts, and justice of the peace courts;
    • federal courts; and
    • tribal courts.
    Municipal, county, and justice courts are "local" courts outside the state-funded court system. Their jurisdiction is limited to violations, lesser crimes, and some other less serious cases. The Oregon Judicial Department, which is the state court system, has no administrative control over those local courts. Here are links to information in the Oregon Bluebook on
     
    TAEZZAR and Mujahideen like this.

Share This Page