Veritas, I see participating with goverment is just giving ones responsibility
to someone else to handle for you. Do not complain when they screw up or demand
more authority. Especially when it's a group affair. I'm just glad I've got the
right to nullify it when that group legislation wants to force me to
compliance.
How big is government? Enough to take almost half your income every year.
In the days of kings, knights, and surfs. 10% was tolerable, 20% was rebellion.
I guess everything is inflated?
On Dec 2, 2021, 6:27 AM -0700, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
charley, if there was confusion my bad but how you worded that i was thinking
you meant paper voting, then reading jps comment made me think that more so.
i dont mean to split hairs here but i wouldnt call how we dictate our public
servants voting, as for the subordinate to violate the peace, dignity, will
of the sovereign singularly is as much treason or close to it as if they
ignore the dictate of the whole body of the people. of which owes nothing and
can do everything freely even to eachother as long as its not violating
anyones consent or will, so if i dont like what 50% of the people want they
can do it freely while i completely ignore it with impunity. im not on the
paper voter rolls, i self govern and with what i have previously posted over
time if im being asked that question, im confused by anyone who is asking me
if i pay taxes with what and who i have pointed out.
to give a tiny recap of the aforementioned of previous mentions the first
sentence of 15 usc 17, glenn (but in this case i guess i should also point
out ed from the republic of texas, of which has ties to glenn. but he has
posted work about taxes too), and paul andrew mitchelle of which the supreme
court in a case involving taxes adopted his phrase "the federal zone".
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, 8:38 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
People of the Republic. In the beginning not many voted and some called
it treason to do so.
First because giving them money allows government to do as the group
called we the people desire.
It is up to we the people to decide to shed government like the virus. By
not participating as participating is a vote of acceptance. The other
voting (paper ballots) is superficial or fiction. I'm talking of the
physical vote and not the fiction vote.
It's your feet that does the real voting. Your participation. If people
would quit paying taxes, government shrinks. No traffic tickets allowed.
No government dictating of any kind. The law of this country states that
legislation cannot stop our freedom. If it does one has a right to sue.
Sue the United States is suing participating treasonous people to our
liberty. Cast your physical vote by suing.
It's everyone's choice to participate or not. And Jefferson said that at
the formation of the constitution. That participation makes government
great.
To all you tax payers, no matter what your excuse is. You are the
problem. You who do not get a passport and stop their harassment are the
problem. Politicians know I do not vote and they know I do not pay taxes
and I'll sue. We get along fine with that love, hate relation. I vote not
in the fiction (paper ballot), but in the physical. How about you?
On Dec 1, 2021, 6:44 AM -0700, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
don, almost forgot because im rushing. thank you for posting.On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, 12:53 AM Don Mashak <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
COMMENTS ON MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL DEBATE 30NOV2021 & COMENTARIOS
SOBRE EL DEBATE DEL FISCAL GENERAL DE MINNESOTA 30NOV2021 &
对明尼苏达州律师一般性辩论的评论 2021 年 11 月 30 日
https://donmashakshennepincountymnfreepressnews.wordpress.com/2021/12/01/comments-on-minnesota-attorney-general-debate-30nov2021-comentarios-sobre-el-debate-del-fiscal-general-de-minnesota-30nov2021-%e5%af%b9%e6%98%8e%e5%b0%bc%e8%8b%8f%e8%be%be%e5%b7%9e%e5%be%8b/
<>
<>
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 05:43:59 PM CST, Shining Emperor
<nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Veritas:
This ia good stuff, very useful that I save it in my notebook.
How do you find those pertinent information?
Thanks for sharing! You are so helpful, intelligent and considerate,
man of good morality.
You earn my respect.
Shining Emperor
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 06:13 veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot
sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship."
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603
(1958) [state citizenship is a vested substantial property right that
cannot be divested or impaired by the government. favot v kingsbury]
If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can
ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made,
are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v.
Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359;
NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449
"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427
U.S. 347; 6 S. Ct. 2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976)
"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law
under which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227
F. 417
"I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less
bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "It is
not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling
into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government
from falling into error." Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358.
butz v economou No. 76-709
Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct,
particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements
of fairness and due process. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial
Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694. Gonzalez v. Commission on
Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted
into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process
of law". Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in
violation of federal law. Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341
(5th Cir. 1996)
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in
legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been
passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no 'rule
making' or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to
the
federal Constitution are equally applicable." Mallowy v. Hogan, 378
U.S. 1
"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be
indirectly denied." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966),
cited also in Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649.644
"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important
rights under the constitution and laws." Elmore v. McCammon (1986)
640 F. Supp. 905
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made,
are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v.
Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359;
NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to
technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the
same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Picking v. Pennsylvania
R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233.
"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully
pleaded,
are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable
opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Platsky v.
C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th
Cir. 1990); Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir.
1985)
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to
technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the
same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithen,
395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd
240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward
in Propria persona. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594).
Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other
members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without
being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law." NAACP v. Button
(371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S.
715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969).
Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial
proceedings. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia
State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335;
Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425.
Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next
friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to
his or her own interest...
Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) "If an
infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed
representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad
litem."
Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.
Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994)
Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D.
Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the
mantel of sovereign',
Oklahoma is a Right to Work State Bill SJR1 Its ok to practice God`s
law with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first There is
a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God U.S. v.
Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)
The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware
v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239.
In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an
occupation of common right." A bar card is not a license, its a dues
card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a
club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the
State, the two are not the same
Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial
proceedings. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia
State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution
of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in
acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is
engaged in acts of treason. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct.
1401 (1958)
"no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". Re
Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.
Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6
Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts
wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil
action and cannot claim
the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133
A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter
and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his
acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)
Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings,
state-federal
"magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may
now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional
rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory
civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a
purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484
U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin, 108
S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (1997)
In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated
that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for
prospective
injunctive relief. "Our own experience is fully consistent with the
common law's rejection of a
rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute
judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated
affirmatively that there is no
immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's
constitutional
rights..." "Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by
this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional
actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from denying any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws. Since a State
acts only by its
legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional
provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state
and federal judges..." "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a
bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial
capacity." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781,
1980, 1981, 1985
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a
state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes
into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and
he is in that case stripped of his official or representative
character and is subjected in his
person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of
clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction,
judicial immunity is lost. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S.
939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 (put this at the top under first quote with
sovereign.)
"The United States District Court is not a true United States Court,
established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the
judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created
by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under
Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States
courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a
tribunal not subject to local influence, does not
change its character as a mere territorial court." Albrecht v. U.S.
Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules
without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under
Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are
Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of
the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial
court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts
of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court
of the United States'. "Not only did the promulgating order use the
term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper
sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules
the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing
act clearly shows the limitation that was intended." Maine v.
Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
