What the Judge does NOT want you to know. . .

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by gatorguy3

Hooded50:

In my case, I have not entered into a contract with the Department of Revenue. The only reason they are involved at this point is my son's mother decided to request Welfare and was approved. She has other children from another relationship. She nor the Department of Revenue have gone after the father of the other children for repayment. The State has set my support requirement and arrears of which I have not voluntarily paid. They have garnished what she has received.

My license has also been suspended, thereby interferring with my time with my child. I have not seen my child in months and was forced through the motions without being allowed to speak. The divorce and custody was finalized but is in limbo, as I have stated in another thread. What knowledge do you have on this?

Demand that the judge show a contract and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted. If he can't (and he can't!), then he has committed fraud by stealing your money. Make him state a claim, or dismiss your case completely.

As far as your license goes, that is an issue you have to decide. I returned my license to DMV several years ago, because I have the RIGHT to use the roads without licensure. I have been stopped by a police officer without a license, and he absolutely REFUSED to take me to Court because I am a sovereign man, and not a state created ficititous entity.

[gatorguy3]

How does this truly fly? I mean, if you are pulled and an officer does not know the actual law (common law) or otherwise, they can arrest you. Now, I understand that if things are the way they are said, then they must release you, but what about the time that is invested in such trivial situations?

[seeker]

Welcome to the forum! I think we have a lot to learn from you! Thanks for sharing. Perhaps you could start another thread regarding the DMV -- I know many on this forum are seeking the solution to that 'contract'. Does this apply to the title/registration on your transport too?

thanks, and again, welcome!

Seeker

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by gatorguy3

How does this truly fly? I mean, if you are pulled and an officer does not know the actual law (common law) or otherwise, they can arrest you. Now, I understand that if things are the way they are said, then they must release you, but what about the time that is invested in such trivial situations?

I always ask the officer these questions:

1. Who are you? I don't know you. You work for a fictitious corporation called the "State of XXXXXXXXXXX", and you are an agent for that corporation, are you not?

2. Can you personally show a contract where I've agreed to do business with you, and can you personally state a claim against me upon which relief may be granted?

3. Are you aware that the Supreme Court for the united States of America ruled in the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, (304 U.S. 64) that where there is no contract, there is no obligation? Where is any contract where I've agreed to do business with you?

4. Am I under arrest? (If the officer says "No, I'm just detaining you for a short time) So, if I'm not under arrest, then I'm free to go, correct? (If the officer says "No, you're not free to go") Oh, so them I am under arrest? (If the officer still insists that you're not under arrest) Officer, if I'm not under arrest, then I'm free to go. The law defines "arrest" as the act of preventing a person from going to or fro at their own leisure. If you are preventing me from leaving, then you have "arrested" me. If you have "arrested" me, then you had better have probable cause, or you're looking at false arrest, false imprisonment, and domestic acts of terrorism under USA PATRIOT Acts 1 & 2. You may wish to contact the office of the District/Commonwealth's attorney before you continue.

5. By what authority are you questioning/detaining me? (He'll undoubtedly say something as stupid as "I'm an duly appointed officer of the law", or some such nonsense.) Then you can reply something along the lines of "What 'law' are you an officer of, and how does that 'law' apply to me, since the States 'laws' define a 'person' as 'a legal entity created by the State? I am not a 'person' as the law defines that term, nor does the State, by whose laws you are acting, have jurisdiction over me because of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"

If you question an officers authority, and start asking him the technical questions about his jurisdiction, you'll see a change come over him, as he all of a sudden starts to realize that he'd better have all of his doo-doo in one shock if he's going to press you.......

[Libertarian]

3. Are you aware that the Supreme Court for the united States of America ruled in the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, (304 U.S. 64) that where there is no contract, there is no obligation? Where is any contract where I've agreed to do business with you?

Have you read Erie? I don't think that's what it says.

The case is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=304&page=64

[palani]

I hope you are smiling in a friendly manner the whole time and keeping both hands where they are visible. LEOs have been trained to revert to force when losing an argument. This could be construed as a 'situation' that they need to control.

Some finer points of law might be better presented to people who are less prone to shoot you on the spur of the moment. Also, if you come across as a strung out dope fiend or alcoholic or are a charley manson lookalike all bets are off.

[D.Dog]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Have you read Erie? I don't think that's what it says.

The case is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=304&page=64

Libetarian is correct. reading that case doe not prove up.

Nice try though. ;-)

[swamper]

Here's what happened in my situation. In 1995 I filed for paternity of my then 2 yr old daughter. Reason was, ex decided to leave country to parts unknown. At my paternity hearing (1996) she shows up with atty claiming I owe support back to birth plus half birthing expenses, basically making it out like I was an absent parent that they had just located. Anyway I had been paying her all along, weekly until she hooked up with the state around 6 months prior to my paternity hearing. I produced receipts, checks, etc.(that she signed) so it was acknowledged I had a paid and wasn't "absent". I had a court reporter there and had hired an atty. (hey, this was in '96). Anyway to make a real long miserable story somewhat shorter, My atty. the judge and her atty work it up so there's a nice arrearage, add on atty fees, etc. and birth expense, I find out later that state wasn't entitled to birth expense (Medicaid), Ex didn't sign a contract with the state, and didn't recieve any cash public assistance, ie., there was no debt owed to "the state". Then the state does the support order renaming the state as the petitioner of MY paternity case. Anyway, anything I get from them says "state of Fl, Dept of rev (Ex's name) petitioners" vs. Me, respondent. I assume it's to get federal incentive $$$ for C.S. enforcement. My paternity suit was to try to stop her from kidnapping my kid, I had prior agreement with her on the support that I guess the state coached her into not accepting so they could put themselves into the driver's seat. Since there's an existing order am I screwed, or can I allege fraud, that the state had no juristiction in my private paternity action and possibly get them off my back. They just sent me a notice to appear and to bring my books, for a contempt, in front of a hearing officer, plus I got a bogus domestic violence hearing to attend in a whole different venue. I filed a Habeas to get my kid back (Cops snatched her during my visitation, yeah thats me) ... anyway, it just was dismissed by the DCA so now they're gonna try and ream me good!.....any suggestions???

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by D.Dog

Libetarian is correct. reading that case doe not prove up.

Nice try though. ;-)

I do not believe Libertarian to be correct. In Erie, there was a man, Tompkins, who was walking along a set of railroad tracks. As a train was passing by, an object protruding from the train struck Tompkins. Tompkins sued Erie Railroad Company for damages. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that, because Tompkins did not have a contract to do business with Erie, that Erie was not liable to Tompkins.

Under common law, Tompkins would have had a claim for damages. However, the U.S. Supreme Court based their decision on "contract" law (more commonly known as "admiralty" law), and the Courts have been ruling that way ever since. They effective ruled that, there was no cause for action sans contract. The Supreme Court also ruled years earlier in the now infamous Dredd Scott case that the government could not attack citizens without a contract in place.

Hooded50,

I like that answer.

So if there's a contract, the gubmint can attack you.

That makes even more sense, since they have the power at that time to enforce the contract.

This makes following the program at pacinlaw.org even more appealing, because what that is doing is cancelling all of the presumed contracts.

Just my opinion.

Henry Franklin