No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Ice]

It is always a good thing to have the "bench" book handy... it helps you to prepare thoroughly.

Ice

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Codee: buddy, do you really think these eightballs in the black robes know all of this?

Well Al I just got off the phone with the court clerk. Amazingly some crackpot like me gets enough attention where they handle my entire phone call including pulling records just off of my first name. "Hi, my name is Cody, I was inquiring..."

Also tword the end of conversation I was just talking politics and joking about blaming the elections dept. for who was in office. The clerk though said "Cody you know we clerks have no authority over stuff like that!"

I said: "yup, You only have ministerial power like issuing unilatteral defaults. Just like a judge."

She started laughing out loud. She knew it was true.

[Big Al]

Codee: your right, be good natured when you talk to these people you discover so much. I had a conversation with the clerk of the jury. Last week and found much that was of interest. When you come to and understanding that all of this so called law is administrative and does not apply to the great majority of the People. It gets to be funny how corrupt it really is. You can not be a member for an administrative court jury if you don't have an SSN#. You have to perjury yourself and claim you are a UNITED STATES CITIZEN and a resident of the state. They have to have the SSN# to pay you as this makes you a temporary employee of the government and their (there) for payable. I don't think the last is fair so I decided to motion the court to let me bride them also, just to be fair.

[Codee]

Just be careful big boy,,,I mean Big Al.

Further they must contract with you for the purpose of the court. How many agreements and assumptions can they pack into it? Alot. They will chain you down with their contract governing law as soon as they can. Understanding and agreements, heavy chains my friend.

[My additions in Blue and brackets and emphasis in various colors]

Clark v. United States (1933), 289 U.S. 1, 11, 16-17; 77 L.Ed. 993; 63 S. Ct. 465.

"A talesman when accepted as a juror becomes a part or member of the court. [Which court??? Their court!] Re Savin, 131 U.S. 267, 33 L. Ed. 150, 9 S. Ct. 699; United States v. Dachis (D.C.) 36 F.(2d) 601. ...
"A talesman, sworn as a juror, becomes, like an attorney, an officer of the court, and must submit to like restraints...

Ok so now you are an officer. Do we see that? Ok so now here is agreement #1 (contract is evidence of "ENTERING" the jurisdiction of the contract.)

WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1999), section 233(a).
"Do you *** and each or you, understand and agree that you will accurately and truthfully answer, under penalty of perjury, all questions propounded to you concerning your qualifications and competency to serve as a trial juror in the matter pending before this court; and that failure to do so may subject you to criminal prosecution."

That gets you past the voi dere stage. Now look at number two.

WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1999), section 233(b).

"As soon as the selection of the trial jury is completed, the following acknowledgment and agreement shall be obtained from the trial jurors, which shall be acknowledged by the statement "I do":

"Do you *** and each of you understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court.""

I wonder if they want my surrender of some rights explicitly made. This should shut me up when I start to complain

Bouviers law dictionary

ASSURANCE, conveyancing. This is called a common assurance. But the term assurances includes, in an enlarged sense, all instruments which dispose of property, whether they be the grants of private persons, or not; such are fines and recoveries, and private acts of the legislature. Eunom. Dial. 2, s. 5.

WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, RULES OF COURT (2000), JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS, APPENDIX, p. 656: Section 8.
"Examination of prospective jurors in civil cases.
"(c)(19) It is important that I have your assurance that you will, without reservation, follow my instructions and rulings on the law and will apply that law to this case. To put it somewhat differently, whether you approve or disapprove of the court's rulings or instruction, it is your solemn duty to accept as correct these statements of the law. You may not substitute your own idea of what you think the law ought to be. Will all of you follow the law as given to you by me in this case?"

Gee now that I have assured [given up my rights/property] the judge, I wonder if they will try to get me accept some form of a benifit or privilige???

Clark v. United States (1933), 289 U.S. 1, 11, 16-17; 77 L.Ed. 993; 63 S. Ct. 465.

"the privilege of jurors to return a verdict freely according to their conscience..."

Well what the hell is going on. Why are the courts making me do this? They need you to contract in order for you to be brought under the umrella of their jurisdiction 9public contracts.) Does it get worse???

You bet ya!!!!!! yeah, yeah, yeah!!!

California Code of Civil Procedure "Sec. 209. Failure to respond to summons; attachment; compelling attendance; contempt.".


"Any prospective trial juror who has been summoned for service, and who fails to attend upon the court as directed or to respond to the court or jury commissioner and to be excused from attendance, may be attached and compelled to attend; and following an order to show cause hearing, the court may find the prospective juror in contempt of court, punishable by fine, incarceration, or both, as otherwise provided by law."

I guess I had better look up attach(ment.)

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY
Attach. Seizure of property under a writ of attachment. See Attachment.

I guess this "seizure" is in case they can't drag me in and force me to give ASSURANCES. Looks like I am headed for the ****ter quick if I don't analyze alot of these terms. oops!

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, p. 126

Attachment. The legal process of seizing another's property in accordance with a writ or judicial order for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a judgment yet to be rendered. The act or process of taking, apprehending, or seizing persons or property, by virtue of a writ, summons, or other judicial order, and bringing the same into the custody of the court for the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action. While formerly the main objective of attachment was to coerce the defendant debtor to appear in court by seizer of his property, today the writ of attachment is used primarily to seize the debtor's property in the event that a judgment is rendered. The remedy of attachment is governed strictly by state statutes, with such differing considerably as to when attachment is available (the majority of states providing that such is available at or after the commencement of the main action until entry of judgment). Federal courts follow the local rules or statutes relating to attachment. Fed. R. Civil P. 64.

Remember, "I" am the thing being attached.

Am I presumed to have owed something to the state? What is this debt??? I know if I am a debtor then there is already a presumed "obligation" hanging over my head and ready to.....DROP.

OR

Have they presumed that I am property of the state and if I do not work to help aleviate the states debt then "I" can be attached to secure the states debt??? I know that if I am property of the state then I will not be kept up well and maintanance of me will go to crap like all state property does.

Maybe I should also look up "secure." (tommorow)

[Big Al]

Good stuff Codee, I like it. I hope others reading these posts begin to see the evil that has infected the courts at ever level. I can hardly wait till you get to the part that the jury only acts in and advisory function to the judge.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Good stuff Codee, I like it. I hope others reading these posts begin to see the evil that has infected the courts at ever level. I can hardly wait till you get to the part that the jury only acts in and advisory function to the judge.

Same has been covered in some of the older threads. Both types of trial have been discussed.

Ice

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Good stuff Codee, I like it. I hope others reading these posts begin to see the evil that has infected the courts at ever level. I can hardly wait till you get to the part that the jury only acts in and advisory function to the judge.

Once in the jury trial, upon my advisement, the defendant asked the judge in front of the jury:

If the jury returns a decision that you do not agree with, do you have the power to overturn that jury decision?

That trial got dismissed shortly thereafter. For myself watching the judge's reaction to the question, I am confident as to why. In dismissing the case the judge even addressed the dangers of common law - of allowing juries to decide the law as well as fact. But mostly he tried to scare me that if I was ever in a common law venue for criminal accusations, the jury could decide to hang me for jaywalking. True. But I would rather be judged by my peers just the same. Not deputy attorney/officers of the court.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Big Al]

could decide to hang me for jaywalking. True. But I would rather be judged by my peers just the same. Not deputy attorney/officers of the court.


Regards,

David Merrill.[/quote]
I would rather be judged by 25 Men right and true from the community than by any judge that owes his living to this system of fraud based on presumption.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

Maybe I should also look up "secure." (tommorow)

Originally Posted by Black's Law Sixth Edition

Secure. To give security; to assure of payment, performance, or indemnity; to guaranty or make certain the payment of a debt or discharge of an obligation. One "secures" his creditor by giving him a lien, mortgage, pledge, or other security, to be used in case the debtor fails to make payment.

Also, not exposed to danger; safe; so strong, stable or firm as to insure safety and financial security.

See also Security.

Originally Posted by Ibid.

Satisfaction of judgement. A document such as an execution enforced by the judgement creditor and indicating that the judgement has been paid. See Execution.

"Satisfaction of judgement" appears to be a blatantly commercial term. What makes the courts, an agency of a bankrupt federal debtor, a creditor?


- Satori

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Satori

"Satisfaction of judgement" appears to be a blatantly commercial term. What makes the courts, an agency of a bankrupt federal debtor, a creditor?


- Satori

Better yet, what made me the debtor when all I did was recieve a letter entitled "summons?" (By the way the word "summons" never appears in the body text nor the word "order."

As to your research on the word security you have seen exactly what I was hoping you would. That by giving a security you are debtor to the creditor and in the creditors jurisdiction. Do not think that a debtor has many rights.