FYI-IceMIA

Icesgirl · #1 01-10-2005, 01:21 PM

As you probably noticed Ice has not been around. Ice is taking care of some personal matters and doesn't expect to be available for quite sometime.

Not to worry all is well.

IcesGirl

#2 01-10-2005, 02:27 PM

Godspeed.

HB

weishaupt1776 · #3 01-10-2005, 02:37 PM

Thanx. Tell the Cowboy Weis said Hey & thanks for turning HB & I to Marc Stevens. He's helped create some Sovereign Monstas!

Icesgirl · #4 01-10-2005, 02:53 PM

Weis,

I will be sure to tell Ice you said hello.

Ice Loves to help people. Things are looking good here, so maybe he will have the personal matters over with soon.

IcesGirl

Jerseee · #5 01-11-2005, 07:26 AM

My best to Ice. thanks for the update Icesgirl.

wirlwind · #6 01-11-2005, 11:23 AM

My best to Ice also. We have missed him. God Bless.

Wirlwind

Icesgirl · #7 01-11-2005, 05:52 PM

Jerseee and Wirlwind

Yes I will tell Ice. He will be happy when he has the time to enjoy chatting

with all members again.

Thanks
IcesGirl

Ice · #8 01-12-2005, 09:06 AM

Thanks, Hon.

Howdy folks !

Actually got a chance to get online and thought I'd let ya'll know that all is well.

As Icesgirl has told you, I'm busy working on some stuff. As I work I am coming across quite a bit of interesting items that I will share with you all in the future.

Having said that...

I would like to remind all that you do not have Constitutional Rights. You have natural rights which the State/state has contracted to protect. So, don't get ticked off if some Judge tells you that you do not have Constitutional Rights... because he is right on the money.

The only thing that you can do is "invoke" the "powers and protections of " the Constitution for the u.S.A. and the State/state.

Also, a lot of you are actually filing paperwork according to "form" as prescribed and this is not necessary. An affidavit or "asseveration" will do just fine. Please note:

Ice, sui juris, res nullius, alleged Defendant, white male, a follower of Yahshua the Messiah in the laws of The Almighty Creator, YHWH first and foremost, and the laws of man when they are not in conflict ( Leviticus 18:3,4 ). Pursuant Matthew 5:33 – 37 and James 5:12, let my yea be yea, and my nay be nay, as supported by Federal Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein, and hereby asseverate understanding the liabilities presented in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 US 325. Ice comes now by special appearance and hereby invokes the powers and protections of:

1. The Constitution for the united States of America and the Constitution for Indiana State. These powers and protections in particular include but are not limited to the equal protection clauses and supremacy clause.

2. Construing plaintiff’s complaint under the liberal standard afforded pro se submissions; see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.

3. (holding that district court should have explained pleading defect to pro se plaintiff rather than simply dismissing improperly plead complaint). Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1991), and

4. Ghadiali v. Delaware State Medical Society, D.C.Del., 48 F.Supp. 789, 790,

5. (stating that: "In view of these facts the court will endeavor to construe the pleading and plaintiff's contentions without regard for technicalities.")

All definitions are taken from Black’s Law Dictionary. Emphasis may be added to some definitions.

Not only Haines v. Kerner but Ghadiali v. Delaware State Med. also... thus, no "technicalities" are to be regarded ... and isn't a "form" a technicality ?

The one thing to research is violation of Due Process. This is key to everything they do... they violate Due Process more often than not. I'm having a ball looking into this. When I'm able to spend some time with ya'll once again... I hope to be able to give you some good info.

By the way, TITLE 28 sect. 1746 is what is used when you do not "swear an oath". Check it out.

See you all in the not too distant future !

Ice

weishaupt1776 · #9 01-12-2005, 10:23 AM

Man. I see that you've been in the mines

Ice · #10 01-12-2005, 01:07 PM

The way I read this, when the "agencies" do their investigation they are to include "exculpatory" evidence... and if they don't they have violated due process. Isn't withholding exculpatory evidence a crime ? hmmm... what will the buggers do next ?!

But the point is that once due process is denied - all jurisdiction ceases. Check out 5 USC @ 556(d), 557, 706.

Yep, been reading a lot of cases and codes.

I'll be back with you all - sooner or later.

Ice