[Jerseee]

Ntellect,



Your post seems detailed but, I could only ascertain this since I do not have first hand knowledge.



1. Are they using the Constitution in this matter? You mentioned the First Amendment--I am confused. If they are using the Constitution in this matter and it is allowed, you better start working on your reply through Constitutional means since they have introduced it. Usually they will tell you that this is not a Constitutional issue.



2. Did you get the CRAs involved? I know it may sound like a weak attempt but, the CRAs are an investigative agency used by creditors, debt collectors, and the public. It is the latter party that does not use them effectively. You see, if the CRAs can't verify the debt--then that is evidence in your favor. Especially if they delete the entry on the credit report. Then the plantiff can't dismiss the evidience since it was them that reported it as valid in the first place.



3. I'm kind of a rogue but this is a strategy that I am thinking of using, if ever in a position that the judge allows copies. Get a copy of a judgement that that judge had signed. Create a statement, a letter and a bill and photocopy the signature on those docs. Then put a watermark on the docs that says "sample". On the docs put that the judge owes you $XXX,XXX,XXX.XX amount. Then you sign the docs and make copies of the whole package. The reason I say this is because, folks have been getting railroaded by photocopies of alleged debts. If the judge rules on addmission of photocopies then your copies could be evidence as well. This will bring an unwanted fury but, if it is allowed then the judge should see how his decision affects all--even him. (I know this is a bit off-track and radical but, I feel this technique should open their eyes as to what can happen to them).



4. Also, I think if you pay that rent--you admit to the debt and that can be used against you. To me, if you pay that rent--you validate the the order and the debt. It is a sticky situation.



5. DId you get the Richard Cornforth's void judgement series? Its in the downloads section and I think its worth listening to. Especially if the opposing attorney is stating facts! Counsel cannot give testimony. I think this is the most viable option of the five I have presented.



Ntellect,

Good luck and I know GA is palying games with you but, you should still try to do a land patent or something. I still believe that you can take that land out of the public and into the private. Here is case law to help you:



“8-1209. Patents for land.

pp. 8-1209. Patents for land. A PATENT FOR LAND SHALL BE DEEMED AND CONSIDERED A BETTER LEGAL AND PARAMOUNT TITLE IN THE PATENTEE, HIS OR HER LEGATEES, HEIRS OR ASSIGNE, THAN THE OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE OF ANY REGISTER OF A LAND OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE ENTRY OR PURCHASE OF THE SAME LAND.” (emphasis added)

Amended by P.A. 83-707, pp. 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1983.



Title 43 U.S.C. 59, established that duly certified copies of Federal Land Patents shall be evidence in all cases where the originals would be evidence. Section 83 of Title 43, covers the evidentiary effect of Certified Federal Land Patents for all States and all the courts in the United States must take Judicial Notice of the Federal Patents and their evidentiary effect under these Federal Statutes. All judges in all States shall be bound as to the power and validity of the patents.



U.S. v. Debell, (1915 CA8 SD) 227 F. 760



Patent as foundation of Title at Law



Fenn v. Holmes, 21 Howard 481



Immunity from Collateral Attack



Collins v. Bartlett, 44 Cal 371

Webber v. Pere Marguette Boom Co., 62 Mich. 6262, 30 NW 469

Surget v. Doe, 24 Miss 118

Pittsmont Copper Co. v. Vanina, 71 Mont. 44, 227 Pac. 46

Green v. Barker, 47 Neb. 934, 66 NW 1032

Neff v. U.S., 91 CCA 241

Paterson v. Ogden, 74 P. 443, 141 Cal. 43, 99Am. St. Rep. 31



Judicial Opinions of Form of Declaration of Land Patent



Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U.S. 488, 30 L.Ed. 1039 USCT

Scheimer v. Conway, 23 How. 235, 16 L.Ed. 452 (1860) USCT

Summa Corp. v. California ex rel., 104 S.Ct. 1751 (1984) USCT

Fiedler v. Pipes, 107 So. 2d. 409 (1958) Louisiana

Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How 691



Land Patent as prima facie Conclusive Evidence of Unassailable Legal Title



Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534

State v. Crawford, 13 Ariz. App. 225, 475 P. 2d. 515

Texas, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 159 U.S. 68, 40 L.Ed. 78, 15 S.Ct. 935

Miller v. Grunsky, 66P. 858, 141 Cal. 441, reversed (1903) 75 P. 48



Ejectment against a defendant in possession cannot be maintained in Federal court on an equitable title, gained by entry made with the register and receiver, though the State statutes otherwise provide.

Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 83, 84. 8 S.Ct. 431

Carter v. Ruddy, 56 Fed. 544, 15 U.S. App. 129 or 429

Le Beau v. Armitage, 47 Mo. 139

Johnson v. Christian, 128 U.S. 382, 33 L.Ed. 415, 9 S.Ct. 90

Doe v. Aiken, 31 Fed. 393

Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 106 U.S. 417, 27 L.Ed. 226



Ejectment not maintainable on State Certificate of Purchase



Kircher v. Murray, 60 Fed. 52, 23 U.S. App. 214

affirming S.C. 54 Fed. 626

Harrest v. Kinney, 44 Mich. 460, 7 N.W. 64

Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 12, 58 Am. St. Rep. 465, 63 N.W. 990

Headley v. Coffman, 38 Neb. 72, 56 N.W. 702

Clagett v. Kilbourne, 1 Black. 350, 17 L.Ed. 216

Wilson v. Fine, 14 Sawy. 35, 36. 38 Red. 790, 791

Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow, 149 U.S. 579, 37 L.Ed. 856, 13 S.Ct. 939

Abbott v. Union, ect., Ins. Co., 127 Ind. 73, 26 N.E. 154



Estoppel has been sustained as against a municipal corporation (county)



Beadle v. Smyser, 209 U.S. 393, 52 L.Ed. 849

See Title 43, Sections 83 and 43 USC 57-59

Diversity of Citizenship, 28 USC 1331, 1332, 1343

Treaties, 8 Stat. 80, 8 Stat. 200, 8 Stat. 218, 9 Stat. 869, 10 Stat. 1031

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199



Lead Case Louisiana Purchase States



Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 511



On ultra vires



1st Nat. Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 69 SE 1123

Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat’l Bank, 144 SE 501

Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L. Herisson, 33 F.2d. 841

Am. Exp. Co. v. Cit. St. Bank, 194 NW 427

Ashley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 410 F. Supp. 1389

Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U.S. 571, 44 L.Ed. 20 S.Ct. 222

Davidson v. Lovett, 446 F. Supp. 1171

Florida Cent. & Pen. R.R. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321, 44 L.Ed. 486, 20 S.Ct. 399

Hanford v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157, 16 S.Ct. 1051 (1896)

Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157, 16 S.Ct. 478 (1906)

Kirklin v. Ellerbe, 225 F. 168

Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561

Nolan v. Cal. Coast. Comm., 177 Call. App. 3d 719, 722 (1986) 55 U.S.L.W. 5145

First English Evan. Luth. Church of Glendale v. Co. of L.A. 55 U.S.L.W. 4781

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d. 266

Davis v. Pima County, 590 P. 2d. 459 (1978)

Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 P. 2d. 513 (1986)

Fred F. French Investing Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 39 N.Y. 2d. 587 (1976)

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621

U.S. v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

Loretta v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)

Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (1898)

Candid Ent. Inc., v. Grossmont Union H.S. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d. 878, 890 (1985)

Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, 114 Cal. Ap. 3d. 317, 325 (1981)

Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal. App. 3d. 110, 128 (1973)

Strumansky v. San Diego Co. Emp. Tetirement Assoc., 11 Cal. 3d. 28, 32 (1974)

Avco Community Dev. Inc. v. South Caost Regional Comm., 17 Cal. 3d. 785 (1976)

Kaiser Aetna v. U.S., 444 U.S. 164, 179 (1979)

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976)

Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal. App. 3d. 74, 78 (1977)

PennCentral, 438 U.S. 124

Armstrong v. U.S., 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)

Northern Pipeline v. Marathon, U.S. 102 Reporter, p. 2858, 28 June, 1982. Art. I v. Art. 3 usage, Does not have force of law. V 104, Supra Reporter, 175-1, April 17, 1984.

31 Cal. 3d. 288; 182 Cal. Rptr. 599, 644 p. 2d. 792, 104 S.Ct. 1751 (1984)



U.S. Circuit Court will enforce new equity created by State statute



Wisconsin etc., R.R. v. Wisconsin, et., Land Col, 71 Wis. 102, 36 N.W. 841

State v. Hewit Land Co., 134 Pac. Rep. 474

Hogan v. Page, 2 S.Ct. 605, 69 U.S. 605, 17 L.Ed. 854 98 Stat. 1671

Wisconsin Central Railroad Co. v. Price County

Bagnell et al. v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 450

Raestle v. Whitson, 582 P.2d. 170

Walliker v. Escott, 608 P.2d. 1272

Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 9 Wall. (U.S.) 575, 19 L.Ed. 681

U.S. v. Steenerson, et al, 50 Fed 504, CCA 552, 4 US App. 332

Jenkins v. Gibson, 2 La. Ann. 203, Louisiana 18 How. 87

Minter v. Crommelin, 18 U.S. 87, 15 L.Ed. 279

King v. McAndrews, 11F 860, 50 CCA 29

Davis v. Fell, 211 P. 30, 59 Call. App. 438

Thompson v. Thompson, 155 P. 1190, 79 Or. 513

Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Denio (N.Y.) 21

Backus v. McCoy, 3 Ohio 221, 17 Am. Dec. 585

Tate v. Jay, 31 Ark. 579

Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492

Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis., 367

Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. (U.S.) 498, 10 L.Ed. 264

Wineman v. Gastrell, 54 Fed. 810

U.S. v. Cherokee Nations, 474 F.2d. 628 (1973)

Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918)

Desenroth v. Dodge, 350 Il. App. 20, 11 NE 2d. 575 (1953)

Lomax v. Pickering, 173 U.S. 26, 43 L.Ed. 601