Totaly Lost Going To Jail

im back, computer been down again. D. Dog. your post is right up my alley. like david merrill said its about contracts. look at my posts under child support and you will see where i got my drivers license back (they wanted $1500), so i offered $300 in a contract and the contract stated i was I WAS WILLING to pay the child support, but, child support enforcement WAS WILLFULLY preventing me from doing so. Another good point david made was send them anything. Im debating right now on recontracting them into lower payments or just discharging the whole thing. havent had time to get to it yet but real soon. Its all contract, period. child support is just voluntary servitude by the way.

[D.Dog]

[IMG]http://[/IMG]

I hope I uploaded it correctly. http://forum.suijuris.net/attachment...ntid=305&stc=1

Paragraph 10. suggestions on change of language.

I was thinking simple like......The husband does not acknowledge he has the ability to pay.

What say you?

D.dog

Interesting, why does it say "former husband" instead of "father of the children"? You may want to change it farther and say you do not agree to jurisdiction, there was lack of full disclosure when you were married that the state had the ability to meddle in your private affairs and you do not agree that the judge can act unilaterrally. You could just insert the word "not" in those two arreas before the word "agree"and separately file an affidavit saying you are nullifying your marriage contract with the state for lack of consideration and lack of full disclosure that the state was meddling in your affairs.

[D.Dog]

Very Nice ;-)

Francis

Novation

I believe you can default them into accepting a novation. (altered contract)


Just my opinion


Henry Franklin

[Skeptic]

Lack of oath not properly filed means the judge is not a judge.
That means any decisions or judgements he/she has made are NULL & VOID.

True, but the judges in the US courts have all of course taken oaths of office. Usually this is done in a public ceremony, but often--especially if the judge needs to start working right away--it is private.

In any case, the reason the judges won't send people here copies of their oaths of office is not because they didn't take them, but because they are under no requirements to jump to attention every time somebody asks them for something by mail.

If you think the judge in your case had not taken an oath of office, let your lawyer raise this point in court. But it's a futile excercise, since they all had.

[seeker]

slight variation to Jerseee's post

735 ILCS 5/12-107) (from Ch. 110, par. 12-107)
Sec. 12-107. Incarceration of judgment debtor. No order shall be entered for the incarceration of a judgment debtor as a means of satisfying a money judgment except when the judgment is entered for a tort committed by such judgment debtor, and it appears from a special finding of the jury, or from a special finding by the court, if the case is tried by the court without a jury, that malice is the gist of the action, and except when the judgment debtor refuses to deliver up his or her estate for the benefit of his or her creditors.
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)

[D.Dog]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

If you think the judge in your case had not taken an oath of office, let your lawyer raise this point in court. But it's a futile excercise, since they all had.

Futile... No.

"Since they all had" check out this link you will be suprised at how many have not, and that is just in one State NY.

http://www.trt-ny.org/The_NYS_Oaths_Project.htm

Secondly... What makes you think anyone with any type of understanding of SuiJuris would hire a lawyer?

D.dog

[David Merrill]

Dear Skeptic;


You deviate from the point; not so much with a suggestion of hiring the officer of the court (attorney) and of course the exercise in futility associated with that, but that you have avoided validation.

Validation is a different issue than whether the oath was taken or not. Of course there were many oaths in New York not in place. That is likely the way it is around the country. The oversight committee is not accustomed to validating the oaths for the federal judges. I called them and spoke to the office manager. Some of the judges have their oaths in the personnel files but even that is not customary. And they do not mail out copies of the oaths, even for a fee.

It is a self-validation upon mandatory judicial notice system. Meaning if you are supposedly subject to the judge's jurisdiction and court, you better make sure his oath is in the case jacket - certified true and correct copy.

No oath - No judge.

If he or she will not do that much to provide you evidence of Constitutional constraint and protection under the Bill of Rights, then abate the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

In the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

United States district courthouse Registered Mail # RA xxx-xxx-xxx US
1929 Stout Street – A105
Denver, Colorado.
[80293]

Mandatory Judicial Notice

Petitioner v. Respondent; Case # 05-X-XXXX



“Judge” (Magistrate’s Name) is to validate his oath of office with whoever administered the oath and place a certified copy of that same oath in this case jacket within ten (10) days of this notice so that either party can authenticate that this is an Article III judiciary according to the Constitution of the United States by purchasing a certified copy of the oath from the court clerk.



Hereby ordered xx/xx/xx by THE COURT

[SKYGZR]

Feel free to forward as needed

Credentials for Judges

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm


The DOJ is the legal custodian of the Presidential Commissions
for all federal judges subject to the Appointments Clause.

The Clerk of Court is the legal custodian of the Appointment Affidavits
for all judges, magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks employed by that court.

We have not succeeded in locating any federal statutes which define
the legal custodians of the Senate Confirmation or Oath of Office.

FOIA does not apply to courts, so you should submit a prompt FOIA
request to the DOJ in D.C. for any Presidential Commissions that you want.
They have 20 working days to answer your initial FOIA Request, and
then another 20 working days to answer your FOIA Appeal.

Remember that federal magistrates do NOT have Presidential Commissions,
because they are not commissioned by the President; they are appointed
by U.S. District Judges. quite often, DOJ also happens to have copies of other credentials, so your FOIA request for the Presidential Commission should also
request the other 3 credentials too: Appointment Affidavit, Oath of Office
and Senate Confirmation, for each judge you are investigating.

If and when DOJ fails to produce any of the latter 3, then you should
submit an administrative NOTICE AND DEMAND to the Clerk of Court for the
Appointment Affidavit, and attach a copy of any letter(s) you received
from DOJ in re: your FOIA request.

Send along a copy of this overdue SUBPOENA, because the federal
Clerks are fond of referring queries to the Administrative Office in D.C.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/

That A.O. has refused to produce ANY credentials, so they are
now in contempt of court, and they are NOT the legal custodians
of any credentials.

Also, send along copies of 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 2906, which make it
quite clear that the Clerk is the legal custodian of the Appointment
Affidavits required by section 3331:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/3331.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html


As for State judges, the legal custodians of their credentials are
governed by State laws. In California, for example, the Oaths of Office
required of Superior Court judges are in the legal custody of the
California Secretary of State in Sacramento.

A good place to start, if you seek to discover Oaths for State court judges,
is the applicable State law(s) for same, plus the Clerk of Court: don't
go to the Clerk until and unless you have confirmed the applicable
law -- so that you'll be able to correct the Clerk of that Court in the
event that the Clerk does not know and tries to do a snow job on you.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agenc...ey.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice