Chase redeems their coupon!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually these details were mentioned on this website -- and I found newsclippings verifying them -- before I found Elfninosmom's elegant summary.

BTW, what was your inmate number??

I quoted her blog above Shoonra. So the people can read for themselves.

One thing you may be overlooking is that any prosecutions in that timeframe, over eight years, came out of a vacant district attorney's office. John Suthers had never filed his oath of office with the Secretary of State as required by the State constitution. When I filed a Certificate of Fact into the case jacket saying so, he quit work the next morning.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I have no criminal record. If the prosecution is null and void, there is not record to be mentioned worth mentioning.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I quoted her blog above Shoonra. So the people can read for themselves.

One thing you may be overlooking is that any prosecutions in that timeframe, over eight years, came out of a vacant district attorney's office. John Suthers had never filed his oath of office with the Secretary of State as required by the State constitution. When I filed a Certificate of Fact into the case jacket saying so, he quit work the next morning.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I have no criminal record. If the prosecution is null and void, there is not record to be mentioned worth mentioning.



Regards,

David Merrill.

How do I go about finding if my DA has filed his Oath of Office? And getting him out of office if he did not?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

How do I go about finding if my DA has filed his Oath of Office? And getting him out of office if he did not?

First find out if the state constitution requires he file at the secretary of state or whatever. Colorado requires:

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

Note when a court of competent jurisdiction, ten years later began pestering the SoS with her charter and mission statement because she refused to give a Certificate of Fact that John had not filed as attorney general:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

But that is 60 days late according to the constitution so the attorney general's office is vacant. Ergo all the district attorney's offices in Colorado are vacant.

About getting him out of office?

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

I have not looked for it in Colorado but many States have a statute, passed by the general assembly saying that even if an officer never files his or her oath according to the constitution, the office is valid de facto (in fact). Rather amusing considering that the general assembly that passes the bill is not bound to the constitution. So that means that no laws passed by the general assembly are laws. Laws must conform to the constitution and the general assembly is not required to take oaths.

So simply understand the distinction and refuse to participate in any prosecutions on grounds that the court has no jurisdiction. Enter your appeal early and ride it out.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Neglecting to mention, of course, that John Suthers is currently the State Attorney General of Colorado. Nobody mentioned his oath (or possible failure to file it) when he was campaigning for that position.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Neglecting to mention, of course, that John Suthers is currently the State Attorney General of Colorado. Nobody mentioned his oath (or possible failure to file it) when he was campaigning for that position.

Then you are saying it didn't happen? And people can live in ignorance if they choose.

I apologize for missing the question a little SaveUncleSam. This is how I unseated John Suthers overnight. I used his own testimony against him. He had filed at least one oath of office for various positions locally. They are on file at my county clerk and recorder office. I coupled his local oath of office with the Certificate of Fact from the Secretary of State saying she (Victoria Buckley) did not have his district attorney oath on office there - with a Return of Bill (of indictment).

The general assembly (who are not bound to the constitution) have passed a bill that clerks of court can bill large fees to pull old case jackets out of archives, or I would have the documentation attached here for you.

Note that Shoonra is applying your presumed fear of prison. That goes hand in hand with the idea that nobody cares about adherence of law to the Constitution(s). Might makes Right. She has only recently resorted to crude slurs too:

I do not find Shoonra insulting. I find her arguments generally are of a neutal emotional pull and she has interacted with me very reasonably.

That too is noteworthy. That she resorts to quoting an internet hack - self-proclaimed investigator/criminologist like Elfninosmom for foul language insults to defend any position is quite revealing.

Maybe Shoonra is not denying that John Suthers ran a vacant office of district attorney for eight years. It is obvious that technically he is running all offices of district attorney vacant by being a vacant attorney general anyway, so why would she doubt I am telling the truth? Ergo she is pointing out that nobody cares. Well thanks again Shoonra!

Berry berry good reason to ponder what people are doing here on Suijuris now huh? And why the Quatlosers have such venomous yet immature insults for us here.

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...07159&start=24
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v....php?t=1007038

Maybe people care a little more than Shoonra thinks - they just have not read the State constitutional requirements for oaths; nor do they understand that the oath is the bond. Without that oath in place, the courts are voluntary and the people, the defendant through the birth certificate/legal or full name becomes the bond. Same thing!


Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...John Suthers is currently the State Attorney General of Colorado.

Thanks! I almost missed that point Shoonra. John Suthers is not the "State Attorney General of Colorado". Here is proof of that:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

Would you like to argue facts? C'mon, please? Just argue the truth for once instead of inducing to the best of your ability a social folie a deux that John Suthers is actually the attorney general...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...lie-a-Deux.jpg
group psychotic disorders

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I think I see your problem. You think that I'm YOUR law librarian. Not so. I provide -- unlike some people I could mention -- clear citations to published court decisions that you can read for yourself. These should be available in every law school library, most court houses, some prison libraries, and maybe some of these decisions are available on the internet.

Obviously you do not see the problem! I explicitly stated the problem; clarification. I simply asked that you identify what part of the post is the cite and what part is your own personal comments. Is that too much? I presume the first paragraph is your own, but between the 2nd and 3rd I am not sure.

You posted the information so if you have a problem making the clarification, that indicates intent to confuse.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A distinction without a difference. The FRNs have said "legal tender" -- and before FRNs, the United States Notes said "legal tender" -- for as long as they have been issued. And if they said "lawful money" instead, I'm sure I'd be explaining things to someone who wants to know why they don't say "legal tender".

No, they are two entirely different terms. However I can understand your inability to see the differences (conditioning comes to mind). I’ll address this and point out other inaccuracies you posted in a more appropriate thread on money.

[David Merrill]

A distinction without a difference. The FRNs have said "legal tender" -- and before FRNs, the United States Notes said "legal tender" -- for as long as they have been issued. And if they said "lawful money" instead, I'm sure I'd be explaining things to someone who wants to know why they don't say "legal tender".

This should clarify her obfuscation:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg

When you could redeem lawful money, they dollars said just that. She thinks that making gold available at its own market price is the same thing as restoring it to stabilize the dollar. Shoonra has intentionally overlooked the instatement of the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) as paper gold. And then she calls me Sh*t For Brains to cover her obfuscation.

If the subsequent actions of Congress had resolved HJR-192 then the dollars would say redeemable in lawful money. If you read Title 12 USC §411 you will see that FRNs are indeed redeemable in lawful money - US Notes in the form of FRNs.

That is the quandary that Shoonra will not explain. Judge Roy Hill of Beans too. How does it make sense to go into a bank with FRNs and redeem them, and walk out with FRNs that look just like what you redeemed?

However it is a lot wiser to redeem them when you deposit or cash your paycheck. That way you do not acrue an irrecusable obligation for using private credit of the Federal Reserve. If you walk into a bank with FRNs then you are admitting to a taxable event right there.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thanks! I almost missed that point Shoonra. John Suthers is not the "State Attorney General of Colorado". Here is proof of that...

And for those who want a moment of reality:

http://www.ago.state.co.us/index.cfm

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And for those who want a moment of reality:

http://www.ago.state.co.us/index.cfm

That is the testimony we were waiting for Shoonra.

What you say in all effect is that no oath or fidelity bond in place according to the state constitution is necessary. That a vacant attorney general office is as good as a qualified one.

For those who want reality, understand that without John Suther's bond in place, you become the bond - every prosecution is voluntary. Listen to this fellow's redacted story:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-violated.html

He refused to misidentify himself and never admitted that he understood the cause and nature of the accusation and charges; never answered in arraignment. And they released him from jail.



Thank you,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Let's see: There are about four million people in Colorado and 3,999,999 think that John Suthers is their Attorney-General and you don't. What're the odds??!