Help -- Fast - Page 4

Judge Roy Bean · #31 05-31-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmcarr

It would seem to me that one would quickly tire of the mail game.

No, it isn't a matter of becoming tired of the mail game. You're simply involved in an exercise that is being legally ignored because your maneuvering has no bearing on the instant case. If refusal for cause had any legitimate viability, no one would ever be prosecuted for any crime or be made to answer for a tort.

Let's see, why don't we just say "I'm Superman," and ignore the consequences?

FreeFromContract · #32 05-31-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

No, it isn't a matter of becoming tired of the mail game. You're simply involved in an exercise that is being legally ignored because your maneuvering has no bearing on the instant case.

Mr. Bean - If the exercise is something that is being legally ignored, then what reason would the police department have for bothering with it any further?

Sending it back to Bengera, not once, but twice, would seem to be a waste of effort on the PD's part if the exercise has no legal standing.

kmcarr · #33 05-31-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

no one would ever be prosecuted for any crime or be made to answer for a tort.

I believe these to be different "animals" from the contractual nature of the situation described here. On another subject I am still not convinced there are not "invisible" contracts in place when folks take the benefit of using State maintained public roadways. George has some convincing arguments they exist. It makes sense. It also makes sense a man could nullify these contracts by PAC in law actions like LB Borks or not accepting the benifit of well maintained rivers of concrete and tar.

kmcarr · #34 05-31-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Mr. Bean - If the exercise is something that is being legally ignored, then what reason would the police department have for bothering with it any further?

Sending it back to Bengera, not once, but twice, would seem to be a waste of effort on the PD's part if the exercise has no legal standing.

yep yep and oh yea good point, I miss the obvious sometimes.

#35 06-01-2006, 01:45 PM

Thanks for the responses!

I used certified/return/3rd party mail originally, so I saw no reason to use it again.

If it comes to it I will claim he has the papers and failed to respond. If he will claim he used RETURN TO SENDER note he'll get himself in some trouble -- as the sticker on the envelope is marked as sheriff's office is vacant, and there was no return address on the envelope (he addedd it, which means he opened the letter, which may be some federal-mail-crime !?! I wander..)

Yes, I went to the USPS office and talked to the supervisor. He is conducting some research; will go see him again tomorrow (Friday) after he talks to the delivery person..

I also initiated the Ticket Slayer process. I sent SASEs for them to returned my stamped copy -- they did not!
But I have third party proof & certified mail..

I also Intend to use Marc Stevens' methods in asking questions..

Thanks

FreeFromContract · #36 06-01-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenGera

I also initiated the Ticket Slayer process. I sent SASEs for them to returned my stamped copy -- they did not!
But I have third party proof & certified mail..

Thanks

Don't let that go. There are quite a few public servants who are derelict in their duties. Follow up, follow up and follow up.

Jerseee · #37 06-04-2006, 06:47 PM

Okay,

I'll post it again, "Challenge Jurisdiction".

Can i get another witness to this please so that this thread ends up with meaningful data?

Never Argue

artificialsteve · #38 06-04-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Okay,

I'll post it again, "Challenge Jurisdiction".

Can i get another witness to this please so that this thread ends up with meaningful data?

Never Argue

This seems like a good time to ask you a question. I know that without jurisdiction, the court has no case.....At what point in time( in our traffic ticket scenario) would YOU challenge this jurisdiction?
and what jurisdiction are you talking about...In persona, In rem, subject matter??...thanks

mrg · #39 06-04-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Okay,

I'll post it again, "Challenge Jurisdiction".

Can i get another witness to this please so that this thread ends up with meaningful data?

Never Argue

#40 06-05-2006, 01:10 PM

Greetings to all!
YES, I am going to chalange jurisdiction. Previous attempts of mine where shot down, as the courts here totaly ignore there own laws!!

YES, I did apply, and am using, Ticket Slayer method!

BUT, I want to have more weapons and attacks/defense!
I want to prevent the officer from showing his face for fear for his job.

To explain, I went to the Post Office and talked to supervisors about my letter, that was marked as invalid address, yet there was a handwritten return address -- written by officer!
The USPS guys were trying to explain how this could happen and then found that they are getting entangled in a physical impossibility for each and every excuse. They put me on hold until they investigate this some more.

Meanwhile, to those of you (unlike JRB) who think there is something in the REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, can you give me an idea as how to proceed with the assumption that it's a valid process. I stipulated to the officer that if he does not respond I see that as admittance on his part that the contract is null and void. Officially, and legally, he did not respond to my claims !!!
My arraignment's on June 26. I can postpone it for an extra month, I think!

I think I have the officer in a situation that he messed up with the mail

***************************
U S CODE TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63

§ 1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

§ 1342. Fictitious name or address

Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.