question about refusal for cause

[theghost]

To the group; If you miss the 72 hour window when refusing a presentment for cause, can it no longer be refused for cause?

[theghost]

Come on David Merril, I know you have the answer I seek

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by theghost

Come on David Merril, I know you have the answer I seek

You have basically accepted the terms of the proposed contract (presentment) after not refusing for cause.

Do not let that discourage you. That is the reason we attach the Credit River Money Decision to the Libel of Review. If it has not been clearly explained to you how the birth certificate is a bank note and you generate the credit in credit currency, then there is plenty of cause in fraud that does not expire.

So be patient. For instance when the bailiff hands you a notice of the next hearing, since you made the current hearing you have filled that obligation to perform. Some intrepid suitors will just write Refusal for Cause and walk it up to the bench. But you can serve or mail it Registered within 72 hours. [However in most cases you can kiss your bond money goodbye because unless you get that R4C within 72 hours.]


Regards,

David Merrill.

[theghost]

David, thanks. I understand what you are saying, and I have done several R4C's in the past within the 72 hour period. First, more details; my son was arrested on a misdemeanor charge last month, didn't tell me about it for about a week. He was never given a citation, just a carbon copy of his bail bond, which is full of fatal flaws, in my opinion.....it contains no statute allegedly violated,it contains a misnomer/nom deguerre, it wasn't signed under penalty of perjury, he was forced to sign the document under threat, duress, and coercion, (my refusal letter contains a withdrawl of signature from bond document for this reason),the processing officer even wrote in a social security number of 999-99-9999, as being his number. I was of the opinion (please correct me if I am wrong) that I (he) could refuse this document for caused based on it's numerous flaws/errors, even though the 72 hours has expired. The "cause" (i.e., fraud) part of the Refusal for Cause is still alive and reason enough for a refusal, is it not?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by theghost

David, thanks. I understand what you are saying, and I have done several R4C's in the past within the 72 hour period. First, more details; my son was arrested on a misdemeanor charge last month, didn't tell me about it for about a week. He was never given a citation, just a carbon copy of his bail bond, which is full of fatal flaws, in my opinion.....it contains no statute allegedly violated,it contains a misnomer/nom deguerre, it wasn't signed under penalty of perjury, he was forced to sign the document under threat, duress, and coercion, (my refusal letter contains a withdrawl of signature from bond document for this reason),the processing officer even wrote in a social security number of 999-99-9999, as being his number. I was of the opinion (please correct me if I am wrong) that I (he) could refuse this document for caused based on it's numerous flaws/errors, even though the 72 hours has expired. The "cause" (i.e., fraud) part of the Refusal for Cause is still alive and reason enough for a refusal, is it not?

Of course! Assigning an obviously bogus SSN is fabricating your son has standing in judicio within that environment alone.

The lack of a statutory reference is against the rules.* For the DA to consider going forward the statutes must be conformed to and study the stipulations for a legal summons. Hopefully the bond was small because your son agreed to pay that if he will not continue through the arraignment etc... to conviction or acquittal within that forum and he has not even begun process.

My 20/20 hindsight advice would be to single-strike through any objectionable part of that contract proposal before signing - like, "...by signing, defendant agrees to appear...". That is to even say write in that the court clerk will return the bond money in FRNs cash 72 hours after proper R4C of the presentment - outside the courthouse and its search procedure! Just for the Readers' edification - keep us in mind next time anyone is at the booking counter and tell us all how that works out.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* My best and convincing guess, since (to my knowledge) this practice first appeared in Colorado in 2004 with an abated cause of mine, is that the DA is trying to conform to common law principles of notice and grace. In other words the DA is sitting back hoping your son will prosecute himself and define the crime for himself. Then after first appearance/arraignment has cured jurisdiction, the DA will assign the proper statutory numbers. Hopefully your son will R4C and abate the nuisance for misnomer (calling him 999-99-9999).

Another way to view this is that your son is now (for not R4C within 72 hours) obligated to perform under the contract stipulations in the bond agreement. The DA will use this contract in lieu of a proper summons, that of couse would require the broken statutes by number on its face.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Of course! Assigning an obviously bogus SSN is fabricating your son has standing in judicio within that environment alone.

The lack of a statutory reference is against the rules.* For the DA to consider going forward the statutes must be conformed to and study the stipulations for a legal summons. Hopefully the bond was small because your son agreed to pay that if he will not continue through the arraignment etc... to conviction or acquittal within that forum and he has not even begun process.

My 20/20 hindsight advice would be to single-strike through any objectionable part of that contract proposal before signing - like, "...by signing, defendant agrees to appear...". That is to even say write in that the court clerk will return the bond money in FRNs cash 72 hours after proper R4C of the presentment - outside the courthouse and its search procedure! Just for the Readers' edification - keep us in mind next time anyone is at the booking counter and tell us all how that works out.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* My best and convincing guess, since (to my knowledge) this practice first appeared in Colorado in 2004 with an abated cause of mine, is that the DA is trying to conform to common law principles of notice and grace. In other words the DA is sitting back hoping your son will prosecute himself and define the crime for himself. Then after first appearance/arraignment has cured jurisdiction, the DA will assign the proper statutory numbers. Hopefully your son will R4C and abate the nuisance for misnomer (calling him 999-99-9999).

Another way to view this is that your son is now (for not R4C within 72 hours) obligated to perform under the contract stipulations in the bond agreement. The DA will use this contract in lieu of a proper summons, that of couse would require the broken statutes by number on its face.

David, the lion's share of your reply had me convinced that he CAN still refuse this bail bond contract because of the egregious errors contained within it. Then, reading your last paragraph, I'm not sure if you're saying that it is too late to R4C this bail bond contract. Please clarify, and tell me how to post the document here for all to see, then you/the group can just critique what I have written so far, OK? Thanks!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by theghost

David, the lion's share of your reply had me convinced that he CAN still refuse this bail bond contract because of the egregious errors contained within it. Then, reading your last paragraph, I'm not sure if you're saying that it is too late to R4C this bail bond contract. Please clarify, and tell me how to post the document here for all to see, then you/the group can just critique what I have written so far, OK? Thanks!

He can and should refuse the contract presentment for cause - immediately. But because the time limit of 72 hours has expired, he can expect an arrest warrant to be issued for Failure to Appear.

Read the bond agreement carefully. He will probably only have agreed to not getting the bond refunded until the cause reaches fruition in their nisi pruis tribunal. So don't get his hopes up about getting the cash back. To refuse for cause cleanly he should show up at the next hearing promised and then when he receives notice of the next hearing date, he will refuse for cause that presentment timely. Get it? [In other words albeit the resident/money scam is fraud, he has no forum but his own court of competent jurisdiction to hear about it.]

Now supposing he R4Cs the initial presentment (tardy) for the record of his intent, they will attempt to get him verbally (only) notified on the tape recorder in the courtroom. Your son must make it clear that he refuses that for cause verbally and in front of two or more witnesses - and if they start trying to get the notice in last that proves it is working.* Your son may within reason try to get the last words in but it does not need to get childish.

Train him to begin his refusal for cause like, "For the record, I am refusing for cause your presentment to appear for any future appointments. Our business is hereby concluded today."

Or if he is shy about confronting Judge Roy Bean types he might just say, "For the record I would like you to notify me in writing of any future appointments between us." If they know contract law then they may try badgering him into accepting verbal notice and if he cannot stand up to it by right, then he may have to just pay his way out like the other sheeple. Maybe he will come around later.

I assert that it is as important to be able to say No thank you to a contract offer as it is to contract for property at all.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* One suitor tried R4C on the initial clipboard presentment. First the officer demanded he get the "defendant copy" back. After three threatening demands, the silly suitor gave it back. Then the officer came back to the door a moment later with a new presentment identical to the first; with "Refused to Sign" in the contract box and shoved it into the van window while running back to the squad car. The suitor is a hothead naturally and made his second mistake - he immediately and childishly threw the presentment out of the window onto the ground and drove off. [He should have gotten on about his business, part of which was to R4C a presentment.]

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf

But hothead can have its advantages. This same suitor stood at the counter of the district court for over an hour glaring at the deputies until they tendered him a proper Certificate of Search - which they finally did.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._corrected.jpg

And he was pretty pushy with the Secretary of State's officers who said they no longer provided Certificates of Fact on Oaths of Office that were not filed with the Secretary. That (David Merrill) got them into too much trouble. He told them he was coming back the next day with a copy of the mission statement.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

Now keep in mind Suthers only had 30 days to file his oath by law. Also keep in mind that Karen Abott wrote an article ridiculing me about the Manhattan Judgment (in attorney Edward Nottingham's court), cured 9/11/01. Later she wrote an article saying that people could no longer file cases (Libels of Review) without doing it electronically with Nottingham being the chief enforcement bully. Not true - suitors can still file; to refuse would be denying access to the court. And now this (attached). If I felt it would have any effect I would point out the Attorney General's office is vacant.

[AndyK]

It's really strange how David's theories never managed to keep HIM out of jail ???

[David Merrill]

I can see by the way AndyK writes posts (unread because he is on my Ignore List) before I am even finished editing that I am still so in-his-head bouncing around like a ricochet bullet. I find it especially endearing when I consider he is not a trained attorney - just a self-appointed tax evasion/scam expert.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I can see by the way AndyK writes posts (unread because he is on my Ignore List) before I am even finished editing that I am still so in-his-head bouncing around like a ricochet bullet. I find it especially endearing when I consider he is not a trained attorney - just a self-appointed tax evasion/scam expert.

Without reading his respectful and sincere contribution to a forum in which widely opposing legitimately tendered viewpoints are so highly valued (I refuse as it makes me want to puke bile), I could probably pretty much mimic word for word what he has likely respectfully and sincerely placed into the collective punchbowl.

Non "citizen" "member" and fellow Soooeeey, AndyK.

Sooooeeeeeey AndyK, Time To Feed The Hawgs!