Michael Edward Bufkin mandamus

[drewenterprises]

Many thanks to the administration and everyone else at Suijuris Forums.

http://www.freedomcommittee.com/1/fr...BufkinMan2.pdf
I am searching for reviews of this.

[David Merrill]

I am not certain what the perspective is here. My presumption is that you want us to review the paper as jurists? - As though you had filed it in our court?

So that begs the question - are we a court? And that begs a question about the differences between a federal circuit and us...

My point being I took a look around:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...250&Ex pand=2

and only find one case from a different Michael Edward and would greatly prefer to be reading what the jurists of the federal circuit thought of the request for mandamus.

I would of course - being jurist and presumably among jurists, like to examine the request for a mandamus among jurists of my own peers - maybe a parish, or hundred, even a county assembly. Some kind of positive law jural society as that seems to be the only sense to be made from your importing it to assumed sovereigns; a paper tailored for a federal circuit??

This does however bring to mind an Albuquerque grand jury from which a writ of absolute mandamus issued in my favor ordering federal judge Wiley Young DANIEL to enter default judgment against the IMFIRS. The writ was simply construed as a motion and upon pressure to get the cause off his docket, DANIEL was eventually pressured to rule against the "motion".

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg

So it makes sense that a federal circuit court's longstanding policy as appellate would never recognize an original cause under Rule 17.1 anyway... And I would gather that is why Michael Edward never filed the request.

We hardly qualify as an Internet assize; if that is what you would hope for here.

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf


Regards,

David Merrill.

[drewenterprises]

David Merrill Yesterday, 05:00 AM
I am not certain what the perspective is here...

Your presumptions have given me much to think about. It appears I have benefited from my poor choice of words. Thanks for your post.

A more careful wording in my original post may have been:
I have been for searching (reviews, opinions, comments, yarn spinning, etc...) concerning Michael Bufkin's Mandamus.

A little background regarding my interest of this "paper" [.]
I have been a listener of Michael Badnarik's radio show "Lighting The Fires Of Liberty" since it began in April. During program #079, which focussed on ArticleIII of the Constitution a caller suggested Harmon L. Taylor as a co-host. Harmon Taylor has since appeared on programs #081,#082,#086,and #098. Mr. Taylor has sent me a few emails and attachments, an excerpt of one Regarding Snipes and Kahn (tax issues):

...A very fitting name for the .pdf attachment is "The Bufkin Brief."
Bufkin was asked, via the "subpoena" at issue in the mandamus, to produce documents to be used against Fuselier (and others). In the trial court, Bufkin filed a motion to quash that subpoena, which motion was abruptly denied, in full support of the incompetent response by DOJ. This mandamus followed. Normally, a mandamus will be denied in two weeks or so. This one was denied, but after a few months of cogitation by the 9th Circuit. Moreover, and key, no matter what their paperwork says, we have heard of no other or further activity in that
"case." ...

Since my search for other opinions has been unproductive I have posted here for any comments offered.

Thank you for your time,
John Drew

[David Merrill]

I suppose what I was getting at is that your most valuable reaction would be from the justices at the Ninth Circuit.

It appears to be an Instruction or common law writ. Since the War of Rebellion, as I like to call it, the great writs have been suspended - as the Constitution - in the actual theater of war.*

So all the justices will recognize is the writ is a motion for a writ - just pre-written for them. Such as we find in the Smith Instruction attached. I heard about that from one of the people in SE Colorado involved in assembling or on the assize itself. The justices will save face like that but they did earlier acknowledge the original side of the Circuit's jurisdiction exclusive to the people - well they acknowledged that there were motions entered in the Ensminger case to that effect without calling it a frivolous cause of his own making...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_3.jpg


But that is about as close as they will get to admitting that the People are still boss; still the judiciary.

That is what I am interested in anyway. I am intelligence nexus between courts of competent jurisdiction and many times somebody will present me something somebody has written - even testimony for the IRS by a taxpayer... I forget that one's name. That was circulating around about a year ago. But like I linked for Smith; the attorneys want to keep people in the dark effectively that the emergency and Civil War have ended and assize and other lawful assembly is superior court.





Regards,

David Merrill.

* I read this in AmJur 2d Constitutional Law a few years back.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

... the emergency and Civil War have ended and assize and other lawful assembly is superior court.

http://www.sovereignpeoplescourt.com/index.html


Much Love,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Note: I have evolved somewhat since this judgement and would have corrected "in Arizona" to read "In the Universe, on the part of Earth called "Arizona"." in the Sovereignty Finding of Facts document, this stands corrected in light of this maxim:

Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by aksis

http://www.sovereignpeoplescourt.com/index.html


Much Love,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Note: I have evolved somewhat since this judgement and would have corrected "in Arizona" to read "In the Universe, on the part of Earth called "Arizona"." in the Sovereignty Finding of Facts document, this stands corrected in light of this maxim:

Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.

The original issue is quite complex.
Meanwhile, many can benefit from the zipped file.

Thank you so much.
The link provided by you led to:
http://www.sovereignpeoplescourt.com/documents.html

which contains much very useful data on self-explanatory level.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Sharing Lights

The original issue is quite complex.

What do you see as the original issue?

Seems like the mandamus was seeking to compel the 'motion to quash', yet there were many other issues injected into that instrument.

Perhpas each issue should have been addressed seperatly with a seperate petition for mandamus addressing each issue, and then the issue(?), "lack of the grand jury forman's signature on the subpoena and other defects, thus 'there was no subpoena'", would have been seen.

Then there is the issue of appearance in the first place, If an administrative hearings vest with no judicial authority, then why was he or anyone appearing?

...A very fitting name for the .pdf attachment is "The Bufkin Brief." Bufkin was asked, via the "subpoena" at issue in the mandamus, to produce documents to be used against Fuselier (and others). In the trial court, Bufkin filed a motion to quash that subpoena, which motion was abruptly denied, in full support of the incompetent response by DOJ. This mandamus followed. Normally, a mandamus will be denied in two weeks or so. This one was denied, but after a few months of cogitation by the 9th Circuit. Moreover, and key, no matter what their paperwork says, we have heard of no other or further activity in that "case." ...

There was nothing 'brief' about it.

Could that issue have been addresses in 10 pages?

Could it have been addressed in 5?

How brief can it be?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

I don't have much time to spend on a complete digestion of that document.