tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post3912721999883410190..comments2023-12-11T06:36:33.525-05:00Comments on NESARA- REPUBLIC NOW - GALACTIC NEWS: WHY THEY FEAR PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE SOVEREIGNS - emailed by a readerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-36611832956130009342016-05-30T22:52:32.559-04:002016-05-30T22:52:32.559-04:00A party has standing to file suit if it can demons... A party has standing to file suit if it can demonstrate (1) an "injury in fact", i.e., harm suffered by the Plaintiff that is concret and actual or imminent, not merely conjectural or hypothetical; (2) causation, i.e., a fairly traceable connection between the Plaintiff's purported injury and the complained-of-conduct of the defendant; and (3) redressability, i.e., a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a better Env't, 523 U.S. 82, 102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1016 (1998)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-76831670881693717662016-05-29T23:28:58.239-04:002016-05-29T23:28:58.239-04:00It's called testifying.
Complicated yes, that...It's called testifying. <br />Complicated yes, that's why Eddie Craig (rule of law radio) says<br />Shut up<br />Keep shutting up<br />and shut up some more<br />There are different jurisdictions, specific, general, long-arm, equity<br /><br />In Washington, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by asserting either general or specific jurisdiction. Van Steenwyk v. Interamerican Mgmt. Consulting Corp., 834 F. Supp. 336, 339 (E.D. Wash. 1993)<br /><br />General jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper when the defendant's actions in the state are so substantial and continuous that justice allows the exercise of jurisdiction even for claims not arising from the defendant's contacts within the state. Raymond, 104 Wn. App. at 633. RCW 4.28.080(10) authorizes general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant is transacting substantial and continuous business within the state of such character as to give rise to a legal obligation. Im Ex Trading Co., 92 Wn. App. at 535. In<br />making this determination, courts look to the amount, kind, and continuity of activities carried out by the nonresident in Washington. Bartusch v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 131 Wn. App. 298, 304, 126 P.3d 840 (2006).<br /><br />Specific Jurisdiction Schumacher argues in the alternative that specific jurisdiction exists under Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185,<br />(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or<br />through an agent does any of the acts in this section enumerated, thereby submits said<br />person . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:<br />(a) The transaction of any business within this state[.] RCW 4.28.185(1)(a) (emphasis added).<br /><br />Long-arm jurisdiction standards are less stringent than those necessary to establish general jurisdiction. Bartusch, 131 Wn. App. at 306. To prove that specific jurisdiction exists,<br />Schumacher must establish three factors: (1) IMG must have purposefully done some act or consummated some transaction in this state; (2) the cause of action must arise from, or be connected with, such act or transaction; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113<br />Wn.2d 763, 767, 783 P.2d 78 (1989); see also Grange Ins. Ass'n v. State, 110 Wn.2d 752, 758, 757 P.2d 933 (1988) (referring to the state and similarly worded federal tests as "the due process test").<br /><br />Above three jurisdiction definitions are in this case I found on fastcase.<br />Schumacher v. IMG Group, LLC, No. 37721-7-II (Wash. App. 7/7/2009) (Wash. App., 2009)<br />There's a ton of tricks and I'm only showing a few.<br />I don't know who to credit with the three rules of survival but I heard it on myprivateaudio on talkshoe.com<br />three rules of survival<br />don't say anything<br />keep your mouth shut<br />and shut up<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-65440682473169012412016-05-29T19:24:18.875-04:002016-05-29T19:24:18.875-04:00Great clear concise treatise, Truth & Freedom!...Great clear concise treatise, Truth & Freedom! Related Solution for good of ALL - Amazing news for a Momentous Memorial Day celebration: "... official announcement of our restored Republic and new currency expected later Monday evening to commemorate Memorial Day--a fitting tribute to the brave men and women who so faithfully and patriotically served our country... living in historic times, you are actively participating in the restoration of your country through the redemption of your currency! So enjoy your blessing and remember that service, surrender and humility are the timeless hallmarks of a joy filled life. God is with us." Excerpted from http://inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2016/05/history-was-made-sitrep-080000-est.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177609856514773793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-38097050056802456912016-05-29T18:34:43.199-04:002016-05-29T18:34:43.199-04:00How many times has that worked?How many times has that worked?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-70543382185805219982016-05-29T18:31:44.909-04:002016-05-29T18:31:44.909-04:00Why is that the one and only question?Why is that the one and only question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-20356587006193284172016-05-29T18:23:50.354-04:002016-05-29T18:23:50.354-04:00Simply answering a question does not grant jurisdi...Simply answering a question does not grant jurisdiction, that is a trick. Jurisdiction exists as a matter of law, they either have it or they don't. Simply answering a question in their presence does not grant jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-37733287731559785912016-05-29T17:33:22.978-04:002016-05-29T17:33:22.978-04:00Confession and Avoidence !!!
Plead guilty to the f...Confession and Avoidence !!!<br />Plead guilty to the facts and accept any and all charges for value and return it for discharge settlement and closure of the account. Your statement on and for the record.<br />Yers truely.<br />Lucifer...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-67140279788434868772016-05-29T09:01:25.976-04:002016-05-29T09:01:25.976-04:00The 1998 public hwy safety act gave the states the...The 1998 public hwy safety act gave the states the 10 amendment right to regulate there own traffic and commerce. Unless you have the original notarized Certificate of Origin on the car, you don't own it. The car has a "Vehicle" identification number from the factory. Its a commercial vehicle. If you have any State issued ID you are considered a U.S. corporation. You can't use their codes or argue in their court as you are not a BAR member. To use the trust's property (the roads) you have to get permission from the trustees, pay some sort of colorable consideration to become a beneficiary and then receive their permission (license), otherwise you are guilty of unjust enrichment. To be sovereign, you have to own property and be recognized legally. Property ownership is illegal in America. The statute of Mortmain, circa. 1206 AD states that only the church and trusts can own property. That is still law today. What you need to be asking is do I have a SSN? If you do then you are a U.S. corporate employee under their jurisdiction and the codes apply to you. Your only response should be: I do not understand this jurisdiction, I am not a U.S. corporation, I am not a trustee or surety over the IMF account that the charges are being brought against. I am not the nom-deguere corporation named on the court document, I am not a 14 amendment citizen as the 14 amendment was never ratified. I cannot enter a plea as the indicting document is insufficient as it fails to cite any organic constitutional law containing a title and an enacting clause. The plaintiff is a bankrupt fiction and the prosecuting attorney is not a trustee assigned by the bankruptcy court to bring charges for or against the STATE. Therefore their is no plaintiff in the court room to testify so the charges must be dismissed as there is no organic law before this court that applies to me for which the court can render a decision on, and I am not an attorney that can represent or enter a plea on behalf of the corporate defendant named on the account. As far as I am concerned, if you are dragging me into your jurisdiction under threat then I move for dismissal for lack of plaintiff and my own sovereign immunity as a foreign entity to your corporate forum under 28 USC section 1603 the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. If the State can claim immunity against prosecution as a USC Title 20 foreign corporation under 28 USC section 1608, then I am immune also as a foreign entity to this corporate tribunal. You also have to return the ticket within three days certified refusing their invitation to court. You cannot argue anything before their court. "If you have or use a SSN you are under their jurisdiction according to them and everything you do affects commerce therefore your actions are commercial as they see it!!" Good luck. Some wars are not worth fighting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-90281842170636729402016-05-29T04:01:07.456-04:002016-05-29T04:01:07.456-04:00There is a lot more to learn, however let's ge...There is a lot more to learn, however let's get back to the so called Constitutional sheriff. The one and only question that needs to be answered is how many slaves does he have locked up in his dungeon where there is or was no victim or injured party?<br />I'm listening!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-15155309773889518262016-05-29T00:47:49.003-04:002016-05-29T00:47:49.003-04:00Was listening to myprivateaudio on talkshoe and fo...Was listening to myprivateaudio on talkshoe and found out about the line you can put into a response and turn it into an affidavit.<br />I know about it, because I found out prisoners don't always have a notary, so they have a need to make a testimony that is under penalty of perjury to be heard by a court.<br />I heard that one time a judge suggested someone include an affidavit with their pleading, and they did it as a separate paper, but it can be part of the paperwork, the pleading, the answer, the motion, the injunction, it can be part of it, but which one do you use? There are two.<br />This information is out there, but people come here, bicker, whine, and act all baby, but get to see their t.v.shows and stuff, but you look at 28 U.S.C. 1746, and one oath keeps you a 14th amendment citizen within the United States of America and the other verify under penalty of perjury puts you outside.<br />And it has to be exact, you can't just put Date: May 18, 2016, you have to put Executed on date: May 28, 2016.<br />Executed has it's own meaning.<br />Their world is very tricky and you can get the word you are called, pretty muddy in their system.<br />Oh, and another thing, I looked in Washington State code, it's called RCW.<br />in RCW 1.40.010, it says the state of Washington (yes state is lower case) would have a seal called The Great Seal of the State of Washington -- yes the lower case state can use a seal saying upper case state, but that's just a word on a seal for the lower case state.<br />The Washington Constitution says the people with the Divine Powers of the Source or something like that, but has State of Washington.<br />So the coded legal fiction that the legislatures use to create a sub state is state of Washington using a seal that says State of Washington, but the code tells you it's not the constitution State because it belongs to the code state.<br />AND the suit in a municipality is STATE OF WASHINGTON and that entity does not exist in any code anywhere, so who are they suing for, or did the people or will the people fall for the deception, walk into their rooms where they have all the rules to the came and like the Hotel California you can't leave until the game is over, or like movie, Jumanji, if you get caught in the game, you are stuck until someone rolls a dice to release you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-12871234102871848842016-05-29T00:36:56.431-04:002016-05-29T00:36:56.431-04:00part 2
I used the Defendant's Motion for Sanc...part 2<br /><br />I used the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions to get them to look and then pulled it before the hearing with a Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Sanctions. Nope they were not happy.<br />Anyway I paid $65 to be able to search fastcase to see appellate decisions and Supreme Court decisions, and believe it or not, and some negatives will not believe it; but there is a ton of case law about our rights, and about elements that need to be proved to make a solid case for a crime, and you learn from the people who appealed and lost, what the judges needed them to argue in the lower courts, that had they done that, they would have won on appeal, and guess what I came across in a ton of words of one decision.<br />This:<br /> The judge who presides over the court, the clerk who keeps a record of the trial, and the bailiff who performs his duties, are sworn officers, and until their authority to perform their appropriate functions is questioned, their authority to act is assumed. State v. Lane, 222 P.2d 394, 37 Wn.2d 145 (Wash., 1950)<br /><br />The one appealing had said something like, they don't have authority over me, and appeals court was like, you never challenged their authority and if you did, you started doing what they said do, you answered questions, gave your name, told them things and then wanted to stop. <br />If they don't have authority and you challenge it, then unless you don't give them authority, they don't have it.<br /><br />So imagine telling them, you don't have authority over me, and they say, how so? and you answer - Bam, you obviously think they do.<br />They'll say, do you know what the charges are against you, and you'll say, you don't have authority over me, and they'll say, please explain, and you will, and Bam, you obviously think they do.<br />The only way to do this is to tell them in writing, probably by playing with a motion that you withdraw and send them a letter giving them so many days to prove up their authority or cease and desist...of course not having signed anything they give you.<br />If they force you to sign or threaten jail, you can put whatever you want...it can be 'he threatened me' or conspiracy against rights, or 41 USC 1983 or 18 U.S.C. § 242, and your first name only for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law or 18 U.S.C 241 and your first name only for Conspiracy against Rights, but something if forced so someone would know what you put.<br />We have remedies, and there's a ton of decisions that say why people didn't win. Put all those pieces together and you got them, but it's pieces, that's why they call it code.<br />Did you know your ID is financial information? That's why they stop us for stupid shit to get the ID to get the financial information and to hit up the Dept of Transportation and Treasury, and probably IRS making claims using our unreachable trust accounts, and if their stop is illegal, it's identity theft in your state statute, which will tell you, the driver's license and ID card contains financial information.<br />We are not fictions, they are engaged in identity theft, we don't know it, they get away with it.<br />peaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2471513656433144696.post-73938778355250472052016-05-29T00:36:32.162-04:002016-05-29T00:36:32.162-04:00part 1
One wrote a ticket DWLI Driving while lice...part 1<br />One wrote a ticket DWLI Driving while license invalid on a state ID!<br />he also added no insurance, just to try to get me to go into their court system.<br />Clerk sends regular mail hand spelling what I am called on the front of the envelop.<br />Normally I refuse such things but I had wrote a Motion for Sanctions to get their intention, with the plan to withdraw it before a hearing, because once you withdraw a motion before a hearing, it's a nullity as if it had never been written.<br />[hey! how else can you make them read your paperwork?]<br />anyway, I went to withdraw and she said the city attorney had the papers and I was to get mail, should be there by now. I check the mail and instead of writing Refused on it's face like I normally do.<br /><a href="http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/508.htm" rel="nofollow"> USPS (Direct Mail Manual) DMM 508 Recipient Options </a><br />1.1.3 Refusal After Delivery<br /><br />So I open it and its a freaking subpoena to come to court! Right!<br />Since I 'never' sign tickets, and returned all ,until I got tired of returning, and every-time I got one, I filed a complaint with the AG, FBI, and FTC to have a public record of their activity (what court will keep a record they'll let anyone else really see?), and AG always sent them a response to my complaint that they would file and ignore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com