Common Law Notice And Lien

[Akira]

Sorry for the hindsight... wish I'd seen this thread before now...


You can't mix the processes.

Of course statuatory case law says the common law is no good... 14th amendment slaves can't use common law process... it's not available to them... for the same reason the magistrate won't allow the Constitution to be mentioned.. Congress is in the way. (Common Law and Contract Law go between Man and the Constitution... the Constitution is a common law contract.. (a new gif is on the way))

Once they have successfully presumed jurisdiction (labeled you a US citizen), you are the one, now under the burden of proof to prove you are a common law citizen and not a US citizen under their purview.

"A Presumption is but a rule of procedure used to supply wants of facts and its only effect is to cast burden on opposite party of going forward with proof." Cichecki v. City of Hamtramck, Police Dept 382 Mich. 428, 170 N.W.2d 58.

Failure to immediately offer proof / evidence to the contrary, means you have lost your access to it (ie. "if you mention the Constitution in this courtroom one more time"...)

I'll post this in another thread (with a better gif) so others won't make the same mistake.


And for "the Net"s info.. Sui is pronounced "sue eye" not "sue eeee"

Click on the speaker here.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[ndusa]

If one can overcome all of this, I'll bend over and kiss my own hind-end!

Nuisance liens; -- enjoined: (In one of the earliest instances, tax scofflaws who filed several different liens against an IRS agent was permanently enjoined from filing any sort of encumbrance agaianst any federal employee in any jurisdiction without first getting permission from a court, the existing liens were annulled, with instructions that copies of this decision should be posted in various recorders officers, and imposing a substantial fine) US v. Wagner (WD Wash unpub 4/12/94); US v. Lindbloom (WD Wash unpub 4/16/97) 79 AFTR2d 2578, 97 USTC para 50650; US v. Bailey (10th Cir unpub 12/9/97) 131 F3d 152(t), 80 AFTR2d 8258; Eismann v. Miller (1980) 101 Ida 692, 619 P2d 1145; US v. Moore (ND Okl unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6277, 93 USTC para 50653 aff’d 21 F3d 1122, 73 AFTR2d 1656; US v. Marsh a.k.a. Pilot (D Nev unpub 2/14/96) 77 AFTR2d 1069; Beard v. CIR (1984) 82 Tax Ct 766 (nr. 60) aff’d (6th Cir 1986) 793 F2d 139; US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; US v. Hart (DND 1982) 545 F.Supp 470 aff’d 701 F2d 749; US v. Shanahan (WD Wash unpub 8/27/97); Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967 (injunction did not violate perp's civil rights); Ryan v. Bilby (9th Cir 1985) 764 F2d 1325 (IRS employees, judges, magistrates and US prosecutor involved in tax case all immune from perp’s liens and lawsuits); US v. Van Dyke (D Ore 1983) 568 F.Supp 820 ("The 'Common Law Liens' are primitive affairs, basically consisting of captions such as 'Common Law lien on the Property and Hand Signature of the Following Persons', followed by a list of people. There is no explanation of how the 'lien' arose, not a recital of any legal action pending or concluded against the named parties. Tax protestors apparently obtain the names and addresses of the employees of the IRS and other federal employees and file these 'liens' out of spite.... The so-called liens are of course invalid and of no legal force or effect. However, they are used ... to harass IRS employees and deter them from enforcing the tax laws."); (liens and "posse comitatus common law great charter") US v. Hart (D ND 1982) 545 F.Supp 470 aff’d (8th Cir 1983) 701 F2d 749; US v. Laeger (WD La unpub 1996) 77 AFTR2d 2123 (filing with registrar a so-called "declaration in trespass" against named IRS employees treated as if a nuisance lien even though the "trespass" document has no legal significance); (mailing bogus liens to county recorder enjoined as mail fraud) US v. Anderson (ND IL unpub 9/25/98); US v. Potter (ED Mich unpub 7/29/97) 80 AFTR2d 6041, 97 USTC para 50762 aff'd (6th Cir unpub 12/18/98) 172 F3d 874(t), 99 USTC para 50161, 83 AFTR2d 305 (filed "American Citizens liens" which "admittedly harassed ... federal officials in an attempt to prevent their enforcement of internal revenue laws" and "thereby imposed irreparable harm on them"); US v. Haggard (D Me unpub 2/12/96) 77 AFTR2d 1309 ("an unlawful attempt to interfere with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws of the United States"); ("Such attempts to torment federal employees due to their participation in the enforcement of federal criminal laws cannot and will not be tolerated." Prisoner who filed liens against the judge and prosecutor was ordered to release the liens or else federal marshals would remove the liens) US v. Poole (CD IL 1996) 916 F.Supp 861; ditto (and enjoined from filing any future liens against current or former federal officials without court permission) US v. Anderson (ND IL unpub 9/25/98); ditto (explicitly referring to bogus liens against a former IRS auditor) US v. Scott (ND Ind unpub 2/4/98) 81 AFTR2d 1076 judgmt entered (ND Ind unpub 10/8/98); ditto US v. McKinley (10th Cir 1995) 53 F3d 1170 (filed "Citizen-Customer Just Compensation Liens" against the federal judge and prosecutor in pending case against him. His lien papers contained such statements as "You are my public servant and I am your citizen-customer, and ... I have the commercial power to enforce your specific performance with a Commercial Just Compensation Customer's Lien .... Your relationshhip to me as a public servant, and your oath of office, give me consent to file consensual commerceial liens against you.... Your oath of office and your consequen public responsibility as a public servant, when violated by you, are my commercial authority to file a Just Compensation Lien against you... You will comply .. and rectify the lien claimant's problem or you will lose your property." Nullified on the motion of the govt, "it is a power that has no mooring in either federal or state law. The liens, in any event, purport to secure assets to which [he] would have no legal claim even were his civil rights action to succeed."); similarly US v. Barker (SD Ga 1998) 19 F.Supp.2d 1380 ("neither federal nor state law provides that a citizen may file a lien on the property of a public official for alleged wrongs committed by that official against the citizen without the existence of a judgment in the citizen's favors. The citizen must first take his grievance to court ...."; that these documents are titled "Non-statutory, non-judicial, non-summary-disposable UCC commercial paper/liens" practically admits that they are baseless);

[mrg]

I think you made the whole scenario up as a ruse.

That is what i thought you were setting up for when I read the first post.

You have some kind of an ax to grind here.

I do not believe one word of this little fantasy.

Never did.

Who pays you people to come here and try to trash the site?

[ndusa]

and:

similarly US v. Willenberg (9th Cir unpub 8/9/94) 74 AFTR2d 5930; (enjoined not only against filing liens but from any other contact with IRS employees except at the IRS offices) US v. MacElvain (MD Alab 1994) 858 F.Supp 1096 aff'd (11th Cir 1995) 68 F3d 486(t); (enjoined under any of the many titles used in the documents, including "solemn recognition of mixed war" and "writ of attachment") US v. Trowbridge (D Ida unpub 9/13/93) aff’d (9th Cir 1994) 43 F3d 1480(t); similarly (so-called "UCC-4 Non-Negotiable ‘True Bill’ Private Agreement" lien filed with county clerk and "Citizens Warrant for Citizens Arrest" sent to IRS employees) US v. Moore (ND Okl unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6277, 93 USTC para 50653 aff’d (10th Cir 1994) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656; US v. Knudson (D Neb 1997) 959 F.Supp 1180; US v. Ekblad (7th Cir 1984) 732 F2d 562; US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; US v. Lerch (ND Ind unpub 3/28/97) 79 AFTR2d 2195; Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; US v. Kaun (ED Wis 1986) 633 F.Supp 406 aff'd 827 F2d 1144; (Pilot Connection Society criminally prosecuted for promoting its tax evasion scheme including instructions to try to get IRS employees arrested or making citizen's arrests of IRS employees) US v. Clark (5th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 485 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 227; actually making a "citizen's arrest" of an IRS agent prosecuted and convicted, with 3 yrs imprisonment, under 18 USC 111 for assaulting, intimidating or interfering with a federal officer in performance of duties. US v. Pazsint (9th Cir 1983) 703 F2d 420 aff'd after remand (9th Cir 1984) 728 F2d 411; (sending such an arrest warrant relating to a federal judge, even one who has already recused himself from a pending case, will be punished severely as obstruction of justice and interfering with a federal officer) US v. Fulbright (9th Cir 1997) 105 F3d 443 cert.den 520 US 1236; US v. Criswell (D Ore unpub 8/31/95) 76 AFTR2d 6481 (district ct empowered to enjoin perp from filing any more liens against IRS employees by 26 USC sec. 7402(a), which authorizes any orders necessary to enforce the tax laws); ditto (clerks and recorders instructed not to accept documents titled "common law liens" and "common law writs of attachment", or if these are filed these should be ignored as null and void) Saenger v. Brown (D Ore unpub 5/3/88) 61 AFTR2d 1240, 88 USTC para 9404; ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); ditto US v. Lutz (ED Ky unpub 7/1/94) 74 AFTR2d 5517, 94 USTC para 50553 ("Therefore, this court, as with every court to have considered this issue, determines that injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate ...."); similarly (perp quibbled that his "commercial liens" were somehow different from other perps’ "common law liens" but court invalidated and enjoined them, plus some other forms such as "solemn recognition of mixed war" and "affidavit of criminal complaint", all the same) US v. Trowbridge (D Ida unpub 7/16/93) aff’d (9th Cir unpub 1994) 43 F3d 1480(t); ditto US v. Haggert (D Me unpub 2.12.96) 77 AFTR2d 1309; (also invalidated and enjoined the filing of documents, not only liens but "notices" of criminal accusations against IRS employees and the like) US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); "common law liens" are only available against personal property not real property and only for a creditor in possession, law does not recognized a lien arising from "unlawful actions", and enjoined attempts to file nuisance lien against property of federal judge and his family without first obtaining approval of another federal judge. Moore v. Surles (ED NC 1987) 673 F.Supp 1398; similarly (in Wisc., a common law lien exists only "where a person bestows labor upon an article or does some act with reference to that article... This, of course, has nothing to do with the present situation....") Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50; similarly ("Where there is no debt, ... in the absence of a law, a lien cannot exist. An examination of the record before us does not reveal any debt in existence .... Terpstra has merely filed a tort claim ... which has yet to proceed to judgment. A pre-judgment tort claim is not a debt and to treat it as such would be improper. ... In cases of common-law liens, in order that such a lien may be kept alive, it is absolutely essential that the person claiming the lien should retain and hold an idependent and exclusive possession of the particular chattel. Whenever he voluntarily surrenders its possession his lien is lost .... It appears then, that in order for Terpstra to have a valid common-law lien, two elements are necessary - - debt and possession. In the instant case, both elements are missing.... Today common law liens are creatures of statute, and, when there is no express statute authorizing a lien on land, an instrument purporting to do so is void.") Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (Ind.App 1985) 483 NE2d 749; similarly (and there is no legal authority for asserting that the Constitution authorizes a so-called common law lien) US v. Lerch (ND Ind unpub 3/28/97) 79 AFTR2d 2195

ITS ALL BS!

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by mrg

I think you made the whole scenario up as a ruse.

That is what i thought you were setting up for when I read the first post.

You have some kind of an ax to grind here.

I do not believe one word of this little fantasy.

Never did.

Who pays you people to come here and try to trash the site?

I don't care what you believe or don't believe, your a fanatic in every sense.

IF the government were to waste its time, and my tax dollars to come in here, I'm sure they could track each and everyone of us down. "Paraniod" and " religious extremist" comes out loud in this one.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

I "Paraniod" and " religious extremist" comes out loud in this one.

What is "Paraniod?"

How, exactly, is it that " religious extremist" [sic] "comes out loud in this one?"

Which "one" are you referring to?

Where did you cut and paste those two long winded warbles above from, and what do they have to do with anything scooter?

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by mrg

What is "Paraniod?"

How, exactly, is it that " religious extremist" [sic] "comes out loud in this one?"

Which "one" are you referring to?

Where did you cut and paste those two long winded warbles above from, and what do they have to do with anything scooter?

Well "Delroy", it was ment for you. If I can find that much in five min., just think what a judge would do! (I know, I know, "those" cases don't apply to you)

[Akira]

In order to make the lien stand, you would have had to default the house owner, who, in this case, had passed away, making it impossible. As a result, this made it a poor strategy from the get go...

IF the government were to waste its time, and my tax dollars to come in here, I'm sure they could track each and everyone of us down.

HAH ! You're naive if you think they haven't already.

The reason they "came out with all the guns" and also threatened me the first time I won, is because Common Law scares the hell out of them, and with good reason... it's the source of our lawful remedy.

Granted... they may keep the country (geographical area) by force.. but they can't keep it from the people lawfully, and they know it.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by Akira

In order to make the lien stand, you would have had to default the house owner, who, in this case, had passed away, making it impossible. As a result, this made it a poor strategy from the get go...

HAH ! You're naive if you think they haven't already.

The reason they "came out with all the guns" and also threatened me the first time I won, is because Common Law scares the hell out of them, and with good reason... it's the source of our lawful remedy.

Granted... they may keep the country (geographical area) by force.. but they can't keep it from the people lawfully, and they know it.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

Okay, so your saying one can go before a judge, one that doesn't care about "common law", and your going to win?? How is that?

If so much as a city ordanance address’s the issue, common law won’t work. Common law comes from England, and is not what the judges are looking at. They simply look at the state and Fed. Laws, and apply that, not what your bible says, not what common law says, not your interpretation of the law, none of it.

There are no common law courts, its a fantasy. (Ruby ridge, MT Freemen, the freaks in Texas we had to burn out) I'll go with all that case law, as will the judge.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Okay, so your saying one can go before a judge, one that doesn't care about "common law", and your going to win?? How is that?

If so much as a city ordanance address’s the issue, common law won’t work.

Common law comes from England, and is not what the judges are looking at.

They simply look at the state and Fed. Laws, and apply that, not what your bible says, not what common law says, not your interpretation of the law, none of it.

There are no common law courts, its a fantasy.

(Ruby ridge, MT Freemen, the freaks in Texas we had to burn out)

I'll go with all that case law, as will the judge.

What "judge?"

Is a magistrate processing the administration of equity statements in a chancery bordello a constitutional holder of the Office of Judge?

Do "they" "look" at actual "Laws?"

What is the difference between a Codified Statute and a Public Law?

What standing in Law does prima facie evidence of the existence of Law factually have?

What action does Article VII of the "Articles in Addition To..." refer to?

In Article VI of the same, what body is the exclusive trier of "all criminal prosecutions?"

From whence, historically, did this body arise?

Is the word "judge" mentioned anywhere in Articles V, VI, or VII?

Shall "this Constitution for the United States of America" "be the supreme Law of the Land?"

What "law" does UCC 1-308 refer to in the reservation of all rights without prejudice?

Who is the "we" you refer to having to "burn out" "the freaks in Texas?"

You were part of that "we?"