Filing fees and money of substance.

[phreeman2003]

Have any suitors used the twenty-one silver dollars to initiate the LOR counterclaim? Seeing as it might be less expensive than the current $350 I would be paying with previously redeemed lawful money and I think maybe filing the pauper paperwork doesn't help the cause much.

I expect I'll need to file on demand, since my original miscellaneous filing accompanied with the $39 fee was returned seeking a civil cover sheet and pro se appearance form to allegedly determine which filing fee was required i.e. $39 or $350. It's more likely the clerk's believed they were legitimatly refusing the filing for cause, it being done in three days. If memory serves me, even under their pretend court's rules of procedure and case law the filing should date back to the original attempt in '07.

Problem is, the fees here to make the public record are moderately costly being as most are more than 2 pages costing another $40 per.

[Notorial dissent]

More likely you ran into a clerk who actually read the rules and knows nonsense when they see it. They are not supposed to be opening files if there is no case standing in that court. The courts are not there to act as your personal repository.

[phreeman2003]

File on demand

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

[phreeman2003]

All you need to do is prove you tried to file and tender the $39! Registered Mail works as good as a process server because if the clerk mails it back, that proves service.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...reign+judgment

Unless, file stamped copies served via the after hours drop box is not sufficient. The clerk did return the foreign judgment filing fee with a pro se filing package and check off form that I also retained.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

File on demand

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

Which has nothing to do with the topic at discusion. You still have to have an active case to file something, they are not a storage service.

Dream on, nonsense is still nonsense.

[ezrhythm]

More anti-sui juris deception from a red coated loyalist.


Here's a post from a member that you might find useful;


"The following attachment is what I used for my appeal bail.

I filed it in the court and they accepted it. When I got home there were two messages on my answering machine from the court.

1st message at 4:55--This is Mary from Sparks Municipal Court and we received you Notice of intent to appeal and you have until 4:30 tomorrow to post the appeal bail.

2nd message at 5:01-- This is Mary from Sparks Municipal Court please disregard the first message we are sending the case to District Court.

SPARKS MUNICIPAL COURT

WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

CITY OF SPARKS, ] Case #060 T 001018
]
Plaintiff ] Department 2
]
]
vs. ] Date: July 24, 2006
]
Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar, ] JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
] FULFILLMENT ] OF APPEAL BAIL
Defendant / Accused ]
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Comes now, Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar, Defendant / Accused, in the matter of Sparks Municipal Court, Case No. 06 T 001018, does hereby notice this Court in the matter of “Appeal Bail of $986.00”.
Snedigar hereby demands this Court take judicial notice that Hagar v. Rec. Dist. #108, was the last word from the U.S. SUPREME COURT on what shall be a legal tender exacted or owed under state authority.

The Supreme Court in Hagar v, Rec. Dist. #108, 111 U.S. 701, said ”The Acts of Congress making Notes a legal tender DO NOT apply to INVOLUNTARY contributions in the nature of taxes or assessments exacted under State laws”
By constitutional prohibition upon the states, and the ruling of the Supreme Court, fees, assessments and taxes involuntarily exacted under State law or debts and salaries owed by the state are only tender able in gold and silver coin of the United States as “dollars” of lawful money, as defined by law, because "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." (Emphasis Added)
Upon Snedigar’s investigation of legal tender, lawful money and this Court’s setting precedence, in CITY OF SPARKS v Albert Salmon, March 2004, the attached is submitted for the fulfillment the Court’s demand for Appeal bail of $986.00

Before the Almighty God and under His laws (legislatures make statutes, God makes laws), I declare that the foregoing is the truth in accord with the best of my knowledge on this 24th day of July, 2006

__________________________________________________ ________
Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar

Dated this 24th day of July 2006.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

JURAT

STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss
COUNTY OF WASHOE )

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this 24th day of July 2006, Katherine Elizabeth Snedigar personally appeared and made herself known to me to be the identical living self-conscious being who asseverated to the facts, under oath, and executed the JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FULFILLMENT OF APPEAL BAIL and acknowledged to me that she executed the same as her free and voluntary act.


__________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC


__________________________
My commission expires:

----------------------------------------------------

Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar

APPEAL BAIL OF $986.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

[Notorial dissent]

And I’m supposed to be impressed with this bit of nonsense, NOT!!!!!

[Shoonra]

The Hagar case is certainly not the last time that the Supreme Court discussed legal tender.

Hagar v. Reclamation District (1884) 111 US 701, 28 L.Ed 569, 4 S.Ct 663 held that a state could insist on gold/silver coinage as the mode of payment of land assessments, notwithstanding the 1862 federal statute making United States Notes, by fiat, legal tender. In that case, as the Supreme Court pointed out, the state law authorizing the assessments explicitly specified gold or silver coins, and the federal statutes made paper money a legal tender for "debts" but that word did not apply to assessments.

At that time, even in federal law, paper money was not accepted for payment of tariffs and customs duties.

Since then, federal law has been revised to make US paper currency legal tender not only for debts but also for fees, fines and taxes (and customs duties). So the situation in Hagar no longer exists and cannot be repeated.

I would expect that the court will dismiss this appeal for failure to pay the requisite bond.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Have any suitors used the twenty-one silver dollars to initiate the LOR counterclaim? Seeing as it might be less expensive than the current $350 I would be paying with previously redeemed lawful money and I think maybe filing the pauper paperwork doesn't help the cause much.

I expect I'll need to file on demand, since my original miscellaneous filing accompanied with the $39 fee was returned seeking a civil cover sheet and pro se appearance form to allegedly determine which filing fee was required i.e. $39 or $350. It's more likely the clerk's believed they were legitimatly refusing the filing for cause, it being done in three days. If memory serves me, even under their pretend court's rules of procedure and case law the filing should date back to the original attempt in '07.

Problem is, the fees here to make the public record are moderately costly being as most are more than 2 pages costing another $40 per.

They have become so desperate as to demand that the plaintiff choose a process server before they will file a Libel of Review. Yes. That is actually true.

Funny how Lawdog-types scramble for obfuscation of reality to cover their tracks.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04912516&hl=en

More likely you ran into a clerk who actually read the rules and knows nonsense when they see it. They are not supposed to be opening files if there is no case standing in that court. The courts are not there to act as your personal repository.

In common law, clerks are not qualified to give legal advice. And check into this Judicial Act clause:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

What exactly do you suppose Lawdog means by "exclusive original cognizance" if not a place to form a record? Think over the attachment carefully.





Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. And you might ask why Shoonra and Notarial Dissent are avoiding:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...ct-remedy.html

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would expect that the court will dismiss this appeal for failure to pay the requisite bond.

She then will be expecting for the rest of her life as the court has already honored the papers that she tendered.