refusal for cause

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think you missed my point. R4C is your remedy. You cannot impede commerce. Therefore expect that every time you defeat the process with a R4C, you will get a subsequent notice. At least for a while.

I suggest Registered Mail and attaching the Certificate of Mailing (.95 stamps and a rounddate cancellation). I believe I have suggested an evidence repository too.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I get it now, R4C is my remedy.
I have read this entire thread and now understand more about this. It doesn't matter so much that the person who received my citation R4C knows what it is, as much as I R4C'd in the first place and have proof, right?
I have downloaded the clerk instruction document you posted. I changed "petitioner" at the top to my real name. c/o My House # and Street.
I need a little help filling it out. As far as case number do I leave it the way it is or erase the XX's? I assume the first letter goes to the RMV Registrar and the bottom letter goes to the Courthouse?
I cannot find the specific details on the payment required and the certificate of mailing. I am unfirmiliar with the .95 rounddated stamps. Is the certificate of mailing the bottom portion of the letter with .95 stamps on it and rounddated to cancel them? If there is somewhere that details all this, please direct me there.
I hope I am not pestering you with my problems; I am eager to learn here! Thank you!

[David Merrill]

This suitor sent news of his Libel of Review and its judgment to a cause against him in Washington DC. He is quite wealthy and there was $.5 million allegedly due. Interesting that the Commissioner would walk away from that...

The clerk sent the material back saying it was evidence and he should save it for his trial at tax court. Well, who needs judgments from a court clerk anyway?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Order to Dismiss was Refused for Cause too. That chief judge of the tax court is probably a taxpayer anyway - not a real judge at all.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This suitor sent news of his Libel of Review and its judgment to a cause against him in Washington DC. He is quite wealthy and there was $.5 million allegedly due. Interesting that the Commissioner would walk away from that...

The clerk sent the material back saying it was evidence and he should save it for his trial at tax court. Well, who needs judgments from a court clerk anyway?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Order to Dismiss was Refused for Cause too. That chief judge of the tax court is probably a taxpayer anyway - not a real judge at all.

It's good that this can be used in many different cases. Are my eyes deceiving me? Is that a Fasci (spelling?) I see in the logo for the US Tax Court? Let me guess, Tax Courts are not real courts, just like Family Court, Adminstrative Court, etc.

What about my questions in my previous post? I am still new to the R4C process and am a little anxious to do the County Court filing correctly.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

Found this today... Interesting use of "You are hereby charged". Who is charged? Who is "you"? The car? LOL Am I or the car charged under all sections? What was the crime?

This is the first one I have come across that tries to explain cause. What do you guys think? I am assuming Refusal for Cause will still work. Ideas?

Has anyone gotten a response after R4C a parking ticket? Today I received a "United States Postal Service Sorry We Missed You!" card with my mail. Apparently the City sent me a certified letter with Return Receipt for Merchandise. I am supposed to bring this card to my PO to get the letter. My question is, should I do this to continue the R4C process? Or should I not pick it up and eventually they will send it back?
Has anyone here had this experience? Thanks.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

Has anyone gotten a response after R4C a parking ticket? Today I received a "United States Postal Service Sorry We Missed You!" card with my mail. Apparently the City sent me a certified letter with Return Receipt for Merchandise. I am supposed to bring this card to my PO to get the letter. My question is, should I do this to continue the R4C process? Or should I not pick it up and eventually they will send it back?

Has anyone here had this experience? Thanks.

1) R4C the notice
2) receive the letter and if the legal name is on it Return to Sender, Not Residing Here.
3) receive the letter and open it; R4C with evidence repository.

There are some details in process. You feel I have not answered a question about these details and that is probably because I have been over this in old threads.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Dear Readers;


Some clarification on Refusal for Cause, how to use it and the purpose of foreign jurisdiction to the US through the 'saving to suitors' clause. This is fairly old information but it may be useful anyway.

Dear Suitors;


One fellow on this email list had two simultaneous prosecutions against him. One was out of Denver (USA/ US district court) and the other was out of Washington DC (Commissioner of Internal Revenue/ US Tax Court). He filed a Libel of Review and took it through term and judgment, properly filed at the county clerk and recorder and sent to Denver and Washington DC with Refusals for Cause mixed into both federal courts. The chief judge in Denver accused the USA of perjury and dismissed the case. [Earlier the fellow went to a court ordered meeting with IRS agent with a witness and a box of "records" (phone books) and asked, "First I need to know if any records I show you can be used against me in a court of law?" The IRS agent answered, "Yes, it can." and so the fellow and his witness and records left the meeting. The IRS agent lied and said he said the records could not be used against him - that is what he said to the federal judge. So he was lying to one or the other party! The judge called him on that.] However the chief judge dismissed without prejudice and the DOJ is hoping to revive that cause and even was hoping to joinder the cause into the Tax Court cause active from Washington DC:


(image attached)

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


However, upon reading of the Libel of Review and Verified Statement of Right and Interest; and especially upon proof of the true judgment in common law, the cause in Washington DC fell through the cracks.

The same US prosecutor is attending to the LoR and has sent a motion to dismiss to Denver with a specific request that the default judgment be stricken from the US court record. Well now! That reveals something to us about the 'saving to suitors' clause. Why would a foreign judgment trouble the US in any way? The suitor has of course Refused for Cause that motion too.

It however concerned the suitor enough to run up to Denver and sure enough, they did not want to give him a certified copy of the default judgment. He had proof with him it had arrived at the courthouse weeks ago. Even then they were reluctant. So he had at least two copies of the default judgment with him certified from the county clerk and demanded they mark his copy with this refiling. So they certified him a copy of his first one in the case jacket and he also grabbed a certified copy of the docket on that case.

The reason that the US attorney wanted the judge to strike the default judgment from the record, at least the one stated, was that the defendant was never properly served. That is an interesting part of this saga too. I suggested Courier would refer a competent process server to serve the IRS agent in downtown Denver, a few blocks away from the US Courthouse. The referral was full of naysaying and legal advice. He told them he would charge them but that he could not serve the IRS agent. He even gave them a form to fill out. Over cell phone I advised them to lose this guy and find a process server, not a legal advisor/IRS agent. But for some reason they went to the same fellow for one last chance the next morning (they had wasted the afternoon with this guy). He was even more adamant that they actually had to go back to the US Courthouse and refile a different kind of suit!! So they found a process server who even invited them along to witness service... Well, praise God for these lessons. The proof of service was perfected and Returned to the US Courthouse Registered Mail.

The docket showed there were already two motions to dismiss from the defendant IRS agent before this last one which included the motion to strike the default judgment because the defendant was never served! Well why was the fellow answering with motions if he had never been served?

One thing I have done differently in the more recent LoRs is add:

The highlighted bold sentence in the above quote admonishes against any clerk action that falsely brands Petitioner Pro Se - to imply that Petitioner is representing himself before the district court. Petitioner is responsible asylum state visiting his judiciary under Rule E(8). If an Article I (active attorney) "judge" is assigned this case or the Article III judge chooses to protect the fiduciary interests of the Bank and Fund, to act as an attorney under Article I, maintain silence. The cash filing fee is fully paid in public money and not in private credit. Any presumptions made about the funds for this filing fee are that Petitioner has already exercised entitlement to redeem any Federal Reserve Bank notes tendered as legal tender for all debts public and private. Furthermore any and all funds discussed have been in redemption of Federal Reserve Bank notes, not endorsement thereof:

"BANKRUPTCY. The state or condition of a bankrupt.

2. Bankrupt laws are an encroachment upon the common law. The first in England was …" Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.

So I suggest you get your rubber stamps made up if you have not already.

(image attached)


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. There is no reason to carry the LoR any longer in the federal court so the motions have all been refused for cause. The case will likely be dismissed because the petitioner/suitor is no longer active within that jurisdiction, no answers to the motions. This cause has already reached judgment res judicata which is upsetting this pest US prosecutor no end!

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

1) R4C the notice
2) receive the letter and if the legal name is on it Return to Sender, Not Residing Here.
3) receive the letter and open it; R4C with evidence repository.

There are some details in process. You feel I have not answered a question about these details and that is probably because I have been over this in old threads.


Regards,

David Merrill.

The letter was addressed properly to me so I signed the return receipt card True name; dba LEGAL NAME.
The contents of the envelope was puzzling. There was no letter but rather, several sheets of paper. The first was a photocopy of the original violation that I wrote R4C on along with a photocopy of the envelope I sent it in showing the certified mail sticker. Someone had highlighted the Payment Due Date of 1/25. Another paper is a photocopy of the back of the violation and the part "A plea of not guilty must be made in writing..." was also highlighted yellow. Then there was a DMV computer printout of my reg, I assume showing me how they got my address. Finally, there is a carbon paper "Hearing Form". All papers are printed at the bottom with the certified mail number they used to send this to me. What do you make of this? Does communicating by highlighting constitute notice? The whole point of R4C is to avoid disputes and hearings?

SUS

P.S. I had the postal clerk rounddate the violation ticket, envelope stamp and anonymous letter. Perhaps this raised the authenticity?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

The letter was addressed properly to me so I signed the return receipt card True name; dba LEGAL NAME.
The contents of the envelope was puzzling. There was no letter but rather, several sheets of paper. The first was a photocopy of the original violation that I wrote R4C on along with a photocopy of the envelope I sent it in showing the certified mail sticker. Someone had highlighted the Payment Due Date of 1/25. Another paper is a photocopy of the back of the violation and the part "A plea of not guilty must be made in writing..." was also highlighted yellow. Then there was a DMV computer printout of my reg, I assume showing me how they got my address. Finally, there is a carbon paper "Hearing Form". All papers are printed at the bottom with the certified mail number they used to send this to me. What do you make of this? Does communicating by highlighting constitute notice? The whole point of R4C is to avoid disputes and hearings?

SUS

P.S. I had the postal clerk rounddate the violation ticket, envelope stamp and anonymous letter. Perhaps this raised the authenticity?

There is some residual pseudonomania, presuming that the envelope had a legal name on it. You say it was properly addressed to you? You are free to conduct business in that trust name, just get the relationships in order first. Do not say it was properly addressed to you.

You make a good argument for an evidence repository. If you had a copy of the R4C in the US Courthouse for "exclusive original cognizance" of the US over all seizures on land, they would have surmised it futile to try washing their hands of the R4C in order to proceed.

However you have evidence of the power of Refusal for Cause right there. They would not be trying to get rid of it. If it was inconsequential they would have just filed it or even circular filed it.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[SaveUncleSam]

I sent the papers back to the parking clerk by Certfied Mail along with a letter with the following text:

Certified Mail # 7006 **** **** **** ****


To Whom It May Concern:

As per the original violation being returned to you in a timely fashion, Refused For Cause Without Dishonor, these additional papers are being returned to you. The client recognizes violation in question to be a Bill of Exchange. Presenter of the Bill failed to state cause for such presentment and has failed to provide remedy. As your office has retained original violation ticket, my client is not liable for payment. As agent for my client, I move for dismissal of all charges and for the record to be expunged.


Officially,
(signed) True-Name ;dba LEGAL NAME
Mike John ;dba MIKE JOHN JONES
red ink blue ink

Well, I got an envelope back a day and a half later (addressed to the legal name and yes I did open it). I was curious because this time here was no certified mail, no return receipt. Just regular first class mail.
Again, no letter in the envelope. Just three sheets web page printout of the Massachusetts General Laws website with certain paragraphs or lines either bolded or enlarged. That is it.
What do you all make of this?

SUS

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

I sent the papers back to the parking clerk by Certfied Mail along with a letter with the following text:

Certified Mail # 7006 **** **** **** ****


To Whom It May Concern:

As per the original violation being returned to you in a timely fashion, Refused For Cause Without Dishonor, these additional papers are being returned to you. The client recognizes violation in question to be a Bill of Exchange. Presenter of the Bill failed to state cause for such presentment and has failed to provide remedy. As your office has retained original violation ticket, my client is not liable for payment. As agent for my client, I move for dismissal of all charges and for the record to be expunged.


Officially,
(signed) True-Name ;dba LEGAL NAME
Mike John ;dba MIKE JOHN JONES
red ink blue ink

Well, I got an envelope back a day and a half later (addressed to the legal name and yes I did open it). I was curious because this time here was no certified mail, no return receipt. Just regular first class mail.
Again, no letter in the envelope. Just three sheets web page printout of the Massachusetts General Laws website with certain paragraphs or lines either bolded or enlarged. That is it.
What do you all make of this?

SUS

Did you ask the clerk for legal advice?