re: Lawdog - Rejection to Skurdal's argument, declaration of exemption

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).

True he cannot just come out an declare it, but if through evidence of a administrative process of Notice of Cancellation, and agencies failure to state a claim "PERSONHOOD" upon demand in response in a satisfactory time period then he could have put in a counterclaim for estoppal of personam jurisdiction and claim of right, also demanding remedy for damages/costs.

(Lined has been edited) -->FRCP Rule 9(h) and/or 12(a)(2)

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

True he cannot just come out an declare it, but if through evidence of a administrative process of Notice of Cancellation, and agencies failure to state a claim "PERSONHOOD" upon demand in response in a satisfactory time period then he could have put in a counterclaim for estoppal of personam jurisdiction and claim of right, also demanding remedy for damages/costs.

FRCP Rule 56 and/or 12b

This doesn't make any sense. Even the Rules are inapposite; assuming FRCP means the Rules of Civil Procedure, 56 refers to summary judgement and 12(b) to responsive pleadings. If FRCP means the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which would make more sense when talking about Rodney Skurdal, rule 56 is the hours when the federal court is open to receive pleadings and 12(b) refers to pretrial motions; perhaps you meant rule 12.2 "notice of an insanity defense", which is certainly appropriate when discussing Skurdal's career.

In any event, Skurdal cannot claim to be "a free man" because he is currently living in a gated community, eating institutional cooking, sleeping on very low thread count bedding, and, I am certain, "learning to share." See, for example:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/freemen/freemen5.html

[Lawdog]

More to the point, neither the FEDERAL Rules of Civil Procedure or those of Criminal Procedure apply in a state court. Skurdal was tried by the state of Montana. The case I cited was from the Montana Supreme Court, and published in their official reporter as well as West's Pacific Reporter.

You think Federal Rules apply in state court, and then wonder why attorneys and judges laugh at you.

Just sad, jeagas68. Very sad.

[Lawdog]

Shoonra:

In case you didn't know, Skurdal and some other folks were also indicted by a Colorado grand jury for the same bogus financial instruments scam that sent our very own DiM to prison.

Let me know in a PM if you want details.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

More to the point, neither the FEDERAL Rules of Civil Procedure or those of Criminal Procedure apply in a state court. Skurdal was tried by the state of Montana. The case I cited was from the Montana Supreme Court, and published in their official reporter as well as West's Pacific Reporter.
You think Federal Rules apply in state court, and then wonder why attorneys and judges laugh at you.
Just sad, jeagas68. Very sad.

Actually it is a mixed bag of civil and criminal, the civil part is before getting to trial aka admin procedure then when getting there tried under criminal which all amounts to Admiralty Maritime claims, especially evident if your being denied a right to trial, see Rule 38(e)
Give me the name of any court and I can show you the registrant as a federal corporation thus doing business as a collection agency/brokerage house.
Furthermore;
A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.
When a federal corporation is involved see:
28 USC 3002 & 3003.

Scratch that Rule 56, I meant Rule 9(h) adding to the above

Originally Posted by Shoonra

perhaps you meant rule 12.2

Close but I was in a bit of a rush earlier and meant to put Rule 12(a)(2)

[Shoonra]

The reference to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 9(h) relates to maritime actions. From looking at a map, my guess is that not many Montana judges get much experience in maritime cases.

Not just because Montana is landlocked but - everywhere in the US - federal, not state, courts have maritime jurisdiction, acc to the US Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, clause 1.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The reference to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 9(h) relates to maritime actions. From looking at a map, my guess is that not many Montana judges get much experience in maritime cases.
Not just because Montana is landlocked but - everywhere in the US - federal, not state, courts have maritime jurisdiction, acc to the US Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, clause 1.

The broad language of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes
whether or not they are Federal or States crimes “commercial crimes.” In the Propeller Genessee Chief,
supra, it was revealed that admiralty courts have jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it would follow
that the crimes listed in 27 CFR 72.11 are cognizable in an admiralty or maritime court, and such are
commercial courts. The relevant part of the text is as follows:
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses
against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery;
illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion;
swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of
marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

This power [of admiralty jurisdiction] is as extensive upon land as upon water. The
Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in
matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise
on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it
can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and
torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also
the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of
Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in
transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the
persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now
the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been
supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the
power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its
courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known
and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason
would justify the same exercise of power on land." Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v.
Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

For further information see the attachment -->