family court..

[MARK MORGAN]

Maybe someone else will post instead of notorial dissent or lawdog....?

I’ve received a summons to appear in child support court and I needed some help.

I was going to claim that the case against me is fraud and that I will not and cannot consent to letting the so-called judge adjcate an order of support and if the court didn’t care about my claim of fraud, the court would be forcing me into coercion.

I was wondering if I had to or should i revoke my signature from the admittance of paternity and get my name taken off my son’s birth certificate before I appeared in court?? or would my claim of fraud and me not letting the court adjcate an order be enough???
Which way should I go???

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by MARK MORGAN

If that is the case, then why can't the United States be sued without its consent?

Sovereign immunity. The government is the sovereign, and you can't sue the sovereign in his own courts without his consent. Know where we get this from? English judicial precedent, aka common law. An old English legal maxim was "the king can do no wrong." Hence, you could not sue the king. Sovereign immunity, because the king was the sovereign.

So, as a general rule, you cannot sue the federal government or a state government unless they have waived sovereign immunity in a statute as to a particular area of law or kind of case. One big exception to this general rule is that sometimes you can sue a state for depriving you of your federal civil rights.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Sovereign immunity. The government is the sovereign, and you can't sue the sovereign in his own courts without his consent. Know where we get this from? English judicial precedent, aka common law. An old English legal maxim was "the king can do no wrong." Hence, you could not sue the king. Sovereign immunity, because the king was the sovereign.

So, as a general rule, you cannot sue the federal government or a state government unless they have waived sovereign immunity in a statute as to a particular area of law or kind of case. One big exception to this general rule is that sometimes you can sue a state for depriving you of your federal civil rights.

Lawdog,
Now, could you please explain to us how this fictional king gains sovereignty over a flesh and blood man or woman?
Please!?



Peace

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by xlion

I was looking for information from sovereigns, not the loyal income tax and parking ticket paying enslaved so-called Americans. To those of you who are hiding from your credit card collection agents. Remember everything about this system and how this system operates is and based on fraud. As sovereigns we operate in truth and only truth. I’m a police officer and I love my son, I’m not and cannot work to pay for his mother’s mink coats and flat screen TV’s. So I have to do this in a way, as not to alarm to many people, remember “be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves” So to those of you, who will never have the guts to open your eyes, keep in mind that all law is contract, it is a timeless and universal maxim of law: “Contract makes the law”

In this case, it is more like,

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law.

The consent of government comes from the constitutions. What is a constitution?

"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void." -- VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)

Thus, you should check your state’s constitution regarding the powers the state is using.

Most of these hearings are not courts of record, however, they may be provided for in the constitution. In that case, it is better to show up and state your case. These courts often work under informal rules.

If you lose, you should be prepared to appeal to a court of record! At this point you may want a trial by jury. This court should run on more formal rules. Moreover, the jury are to review the "facts" and the "law". Otherwise, the trial is unfair:

Supposedly, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. Irvin v. Dowd, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642 (1961).

United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1980), in an opinion which I wrote for a unanimous panel we stated:
In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position. It has a general veto power, and this power should not be attenuated by requiring the jury to answer in writing a detailed list of questions or explain its reasons. The jury's veto power was settled in Throckmorton's case in 1544 according to Professor Plucknett:

”The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. supreme Court, 1941

A JURY'S RIGHTS, POWERS, AND DUTIES
The Charge to the Jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrates the true power of the jury. In the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, (3 Dall. 1)


...it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But STILL BOTH OBJECTS ARE WITHIN YOUR POWER OF DECISION. (emphasis added) ...you have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Here what one judge had to say on this issue,

Originally Posted by IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ATKINSON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

NOW, THEREFORE, this Court hereby declares the child support guidelines codifed in section 19-6-15, O.C.G.A. (hereinafter, the "Guidelines") to be null and void as the Guidelines violate numerous provisions of the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Georgia for the reasons set forth below.

Emphasis added.

http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/st...kinsOrder.html

I think that it is a good idea to look at the issue the judge raises and see how close this may be to your situation. Also, it might be of use help to observe how the judge organizes the issue. You should look up similar situations in your state.

In the final analysis, it is the people who are Sovereign.

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." --supreme Court Decision, Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by xlion

I’m a police officer and I love my son, I’m not and cannot work to pay for his mother’s mink coats and flat screen TV’s. So I have to do this in a way, as not to alarm to many people, remember “be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves” So to those of you, who will never have the guts to open your eyes, keep in mind that all law is contract, it is a timeless and universal maxim of law: “Contract makes the law”

This is rich...you are a police officer, an agent of the government. Yet you want to ignore that same government that pays you and gives you power of arrest over your fellow citizens when it suits your personal preferences. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

The idea that "all law is contract" is a common but moronic belief in the "sovrun citizun" nutball movement. Criminal law has nothing to do with contract law. Tort law (like personal injury and defamation) has nothing to do with contract law.

The contract does not make the law. Quite the contrary, the law decides what is and is not a valid and enforceable contract. A contract to commit a crime is absolutely void. A contract that lacks consideration will be unenforceable on that grounds.

Bottom line...if you think your wife is wrongly spending money meant for child support on herself instead, BRING THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. But don't play bull***t games with the system. That's doubly dangerous for a government employee like yourself, because it could get you in trouble with your boss. They can't have an officer on their payroll who is a scofflaw. If word gets out, folks will be saying, "If even a cop disobeys the courts, why can't I?"

You're treading on thin ice. Either lawyer up, or buy some books from Nolo Press. They can show you how to represent yourself in a sane, rational way that won't get you in trouble.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Mark

Lawdog,
Now, could you please explain to us how this fictional king gains sovereignty over a flesh and blood man or woman?
Please!?



Peace

The king is a fiction? Really? So if you went to Spain and killed King Juan Carlos the First, you would defend yourself on the murder charge by saying "I only killed a fiction, not a flesh and blood man, so you can't convict me"?

That might get you confined to an insane asylum rather than prison, but you're still locked up.

What I was saying is...sovereign immunity is something we inherited from old English common law. The judges in England decided long ago that the king could not be sued without his consent in his own courts.

Even though we don't have a monarchy in this country, we have continued to adhere to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In some areas the states and the federal government have passed laws allowing themselves to be sued for certain things, but if the thing you want to sue for is not on that list, your suit will be barred by sovereign immunity. Both the federal government and the state governments can invoke sovereign immunity where appropriate.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The king is a fiction?

Really?


What I was saying is...sovereign immunity is something we inherited from old English common law.

The judges in England decided long ago that the king could not be sued without his consent in his own courts.

Even though we don't have a monarchy in this country, we have continued to adhere to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The king is a fiction?

Really?

Sick puppy.

[netwrkranger]

... Lawdog is redirecting the thread to non-productive ends (which he frequently does).

As to the question of the original thread, I recommend the following:

1) Clear out your bank accounts or create a bank account with no SSN. This will not protect you from the courts levying your paycheck, however.

2) Investigate this forum for information on 'Refusal for Cause'.

3) Do some investigation on family courts, summons, service, civil actions, criminal actions, jurisdiction (subject matter, in personam, in rem), drafting forms, courts at law, courts in equity, courts in admiralty, and court procedures of your state. If you do choose to answer the summons, make a special appearance rather than a general one (state this before the pleading). Request a court of record. Bring your own court reporter. If you are asked to sign anything, investigate the UCC and utilize limited endorsements. Better yet, sign nothing =D.

Don't forget the licenses and contracts you signed with the state in this regard i.e. marriage license and birth certificates. Custody court proceedings, from my understanding, are conducted 'in rem' (so the children are property of the state. Check out American Jurisprudence in this regard.)

You'll need to build a legal library such as Black's Law Dictionary and others.

Here are some links:
www.jurisdictionary.com
http://adventuresinlegalland.com/
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/index.html
How to do Legal Research: http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/mpoctalk.html
The Pro-Se Way: http://www.caught.net/prose/prose.htm
How to Fight for Custody the Pro Se Way: http://www.ehow.com/how_2123513_figh...ro-se-way.html
George Gordon School of Law radio archives: http://www.georgegordon.org/radio.html (check out all he has on marriage, divorce, law, contracts, licenses, and parens patriae)


4) If you aren't willing to fight this out to the nth degree, follow the way of Shoonra and Lawdog (capitulation). Rights can only be upheld by the belligerent claimant.

It seems to me, your options are to go with the flow and be financially ruined or fight it out, learn something about the courts, and begin your path towards upholding your rights. In any event, you have a battle on your hands. If you do it yourself, you may lose, but at least you learn something which you can use in the future. You can hire a liar (lawyer?) and lose anyway. Why pay money to lose? You know, de facto and in practice, that family courts are setup for the male to lose despite all the hot air others will claim about 'justice' and 'doing what is best for the child'. You have nothing to lose. Your life will have to change due to the necessity of the situation. Will you consent and agree to slavery or will you battle for your freedom and rights?

If anyone (who isn't a lackey for the system) sees anything which they disagree with, please contribute by all means. If there are any errors, I apologize in advance, and please advise me towards correction.

Personally, I would fight it out rather than go with the flow.

[mrg]

Excellent info, as always networkranger!

I have replied like this in the past, over and over, and for precisely the same reasons you state in your opening.

As wargamez, a venerable, and now gone, member used to say "it's in me archives," more than 2000 posts of which have apparently gone down the site's quirky "memory hole."

It is very good that new members with brains and fortitude have joined and continue to reiterate familiar themes while adding their own unique resources, knowledge, and perspective.


Thank you.

[Jerry Pitts]

Just one additional note. I noticed that you referenced a website labeled as "the pro se way". Should the intent behind that inclusion be that litigation should ensue, then it would also be important to remind whoever, to check out the administrative procedures of the agency of that state to acquire the 'policies and procedures' of that agency and beat them with their own ammunition. Those agencies are operating in Administrative procedure, and if they violate the administrative policies and procedures in a significant way, then the case that they were developing, goes down the drain.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

... Lawdog is redirecting the thread to non-productive ends (which he frequently does).

As to the question of the original thread, I recommend the following:

1) Clear out your bank accounts or create a bank account with no SSN. This will not protect you from the courts levying your paycheck, however.

2) Investigate this forum for information on 'Refusal for Cause'.

3) Do some investigation on family courts, summons, service, civil actions, criminal actions, jurisdiction (subject matter, in personam, in rem), drafting forms, courts at law, courts in equity, courts in admiralty, and court procedures of your state. If you do choose to answer the summons, make a special appearance rather than a general one (state this before the pleading). Request a court of record. Bring your own court reporter. If you are asked to sign anything, investigate the UCC and utilize limited endorsements. Better yet, sign nothing =D.

Don't forget the licenses and contracts you signed with the state in this regard i.e. marriage license and birth certificates. Custody court proceedings, from my understanding, are conducted 'in rem' (so the children are property of the state. Check out American Jurisprudence in this regard.)

You'll need to build a legal library such as Black's Law Dictionary and others.

Here are some links:
www.jurisdictionary.com
http://adventuresinlegalland.com/
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/index.html
How to do Legal Research: http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/mpoctalk.html
The Pro-Se Way: http://www.caught.net/prose/prose.htm
How to Fight for Custody the Pro Se Way: http://www.ehow.com/how_2123513_figh...ro-se-way.html
George Gordon School of Law radio archives: http://www.georgegordon.org/radio.html (check out all he has on marriage, divorce, law, contracts, licenses, and parens patriae)


4) If you aren't willing to fight this out to the nth degree, follow the way of Shoonra and Lawdog (capitulation). Rights can only be upheld by the belligerent claimant.

It seems to me, your options are to go with the flow and be financially ruined or fight it out, learn something about the courts, and begin your path towards upholding your rights. In any event, you have a battle on your hands. If you do it yourself, you may lose, but at least you learn something which you can use in the future. You can hire a liar (lawyer?) and lose anyway. Why pay money to lose? You know, de facto and in practice, that family courts are setup for the male to lose despite all the hot air others will claim about 'justice' and 'doing what is best for the child'. You have nothing to lose. Your life will have to change due to the necessity of the situation. Will you consent and agree to slavery or will you battle for your freedom and rights?

If anyone (who isn't a lackey for the system) sees anything which they disagree with, please contribute by all means. If there are any errors, I apologize in advance, and please advise me towards correction.

Personally, I would fight it out rather than go with the flow.