Veritas
I'm not saying that at all, not at all. Putting your name is just referencing
your comment to add my thoughts to that concept presented in that post. If you
do or do not, it's your decision. I'm not a gotcha type of guy. I know who I am
and need no ego simulation. I'm just presenting my opinion.
On Dec 3, 2021, 6:00 AM -0700, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
charley, i guess you got confused when i said i self govern. where did i say
i pass my responsibility to anyone else? it seems youve gotten upset again
and are getting ahead of yourself in an attempts of a "gotcha" moment thats
not coming.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 3:12 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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)
