Is thou a man/woman or an inanimate person, meaning a corporate fiction? When something arrives at thy home addressed to FIRST LAST, is that meant for the living man/woman? If thou opens that letter and keeps it, though it is meant for someone else, might thou be breaking a law? What to do? Send it back!
Since the website Peoples-rights.com needs modern formatting, I have pasted key portions below. Please note, the managers of that site offer many courses that are likely worthwhile considering the value of the content below! Also, the manager of the site is often on Angela Stark’s audio call. He seems to see the roots of the problems.
There is a paid, more elaborate version of the approach below available from their sister site, Escape Tickets, Courts, and the IRS.
It is well worth reading about Service of Process.
It Ain’t Me – Testimonial
“real live man, or FICTION ? – “It Ain’t Me.” ”
This “Letter” (with Papers Returned) saved me $12,000.00 and/or jail by: David S. DeRiemer, – Peoples Rights Association c/o, – 1624 Savannah Rd.A.B., Lewes, Delaware No zip used
I received (all rights reserved/without prejudice to rights) by mail, Nine (9) letters/”Statements of Amounts Due” in Nine (9) separate envelopes from the “Court”. They said “pay the amount due, or there will be a “Contempt Of Court” HEARING, Wednesday at 1:30 p.m., for failure to pay”, and I would go to jail.
After photocopying the envelopes and their contents, – I marked the envelopes “Opened by Mistake” (per State and U.C.C. section 1-103 “Underlying fundamental principles of Law”), and marked “Return to Sender” on each envelope, and they were each “Returned” by the Post Office.
I then sent CERTIFIED MAIL (all rights reserved) the enclosed “It Ain’t Me” letter (with copies of the returned Marked numbered envelopes attached as exhibits). It said that the Defendant is a fiction – since I am not a fiction “It ain’t me”. The Defendant spells its name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS – since I spell my name with lower case letters “It ain’t me”. The Defendant’s “address” is at a fiction zone titled “DE”. Since I have no contact, no contract, no nexus, and no connection to fiction zone “DE”, – “It Ain’t me”. The Defendant’s #’address” is at a fiction zone number 19958. Since I have no contract, no contact, no nexus, and no connection to fiction zone 19958, – “It ain’t me”. Since it is against the law for me to accept or keep Mail or papers, especially legal papers, that are apparently intended for another, it would be Mail Fraud for me to keep them, so they are refused, rejected and “Returned To Sender”, envelope copies attached hereto. If it is in fact me, the real live natural flesh and blood Man of GOD who you wish to contact, – spell my name with lower case letters, my “temporary Mail Location” is “Care of” 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware (spelled fully out) and NO VOLUNTARY ZIP CODE USED, just as it appears on thin “In Forma Pauperis” form.
We suspected that if I “failed to appear” they would simply send out a “SWAT TEAM” to personally arrest me an forcibly bring me in, – so on Wednesday,I walked into the Courtroom at 1:30. The room was dark and empty.
I went down to the Court Clerk’s Office to inquire. They said “Wait a minute” and telephoned to the Chief Clerk. I waited out in the lobby and when she saw me, she said “Oh, Mr. DeRiemer, what are You doing here?”. I said “Well, you mailed these nine (9) NOTICES that there was to be a HEARING here now”. She said “But, – you sent the NOTICES back.” [In other words “BECAUSE you sent the NOTICES back, We did not obtain “Service of Process”.]
I then said, “Well, now that I am here, I would like to talk to the Judge.”
She said “What about?”
I said “I have this ‘In Forma Pauperis’ Form here and I’d like to talk to him about it.”
She said “Can I see it?”. I said “Sure”. She said, “Well, If you want him to look at it, we better “clock
I said, “How about “clock” my copy in also, to prove that I was here at the appointed hour and date. Also, I would like a written statement on Court Stationery that I was here, and that No “Capias” (Bench Warrant) will be issued later today.”
She said “O.K., but how will we notify you when the HEARING on this In Forma Pauperis is scheduled, as you don’t get your mail.”
I said, “sure I do. just spell my Name in lower case letters, use “Care of” before the “Mail Location”, fully spell out “Delaware”, and use NO ZIP CODE NUMBER, and it will get to me just fine.
She gave me one of those sickening sweet Government employee all knowing “smiles”, and went down the Hall toward her office. I began to follow, but she said “Just wait out here, and I’ll be right back.”
23 minutes later – she appeared with a single sheet of Court Letterhead paper with two (2) sentences on it. The FIRST ENTIRE SENTENCE WAS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, AND SAID “DAVID S. DERIEMER (no address or “temporary Mail location” at all), HAD APPEARED AND NO CAPIAS WOULD BE ISSUED, AT THIS TIME.”
The second (2nd) sentence was in all lower case letters, and said that the Hearing on the “In Forma Pauperis” form, would be heard two weeks -from that date Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. (The “In Forma Pauperis” said that I didn’t own the House that I thought I owned; I didn’t own the car that I thought I owned; I didn’t own any cash in my pocket that I thought I owned; I didn’t own the money that I thought was in the Bank; I didn’t own my physical Body which I thought I owned,- or my wife, or my children, or anything). It was signed Without prejudice” in case I had made a “Mistake”, so it couldn’t be introduced into evidence in any court proceeding anyway.
The First HEARING was to have been about “Contempt of Court” with pending jail time. Now, we are talking “In Forma Pauperis” HEARING.
It is similar to a “Counter-Complaint”, – and that a Defendant Cannot do the impossible (since “No Money” in circulation), and a Court cannot be “unreasonable” by Ordering the impossible or penalizing one for failure to perform the impossible.
Two (2) weeks went by and Friday afternoon at 2:30 p.m., my wife received a telephone call from the Judge’s Personal Secretary not just the Clerk. She said “Your Husband need not come to court Monday morning, because the Judge has decided to “Take it under Advisement’.
We suspected that they wanted to trick me into “failure to appear” so they could dismiss my “In Forma Pauperis”. So, I called her back and asked her to repeat the message, which she did. I then asked for a letter of written confirmation of the phone call, which she did send.
That has been almost one (1) year ago, and we have not heard anything about either the “Contempt of Court” or the “In Forma Pauperis” since.
CONCLUSIONS: The Judge had been put into a”catch 22″ situation.
They didn’t obtain “Service of Process” on the fiction ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME Defendant so they couldn’t proceed against it, and they had a “Petition for In Forma Pauperis from a party who is not the Defendant and is not privy to the case/suit. The judge couldn’t hear the Petition from a non-party to the case.
The distinction is between a FICTION, or a real live natural flesh and blood man of GOD. Because government is a fiction corporation, – it can only have cognizance of other FICTIONS. This is the reason that “Taxpayer License/ Taxpayer I.D.#/ Social Security Numbers” and “Driver Licenses” (etc.) are only issued to FICTIONS, which have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Government FICTIONS cannot have contact or acknowledge real live natural people. They can only contact fiction “persons”. “People” are real, “persons” are fictions.
They might have sent over some “Constable” or “Sheriff” to personally serve the “Court Papers” on real live me, but that wouldn’t have worked either.
It Ain’t Me # 2
A Chiropractor in Georgia, was served “Court Papers” by a Deputy Sheriff on Friday Afternoon re: a Court HEARING on Monday at 9:30 a.m., believing that he couldn’t act on them before the HEARING time.
He didn’t have time enough to mail the “Papers” back to the Court, so He had a neighbor act as his personal “Process Server”, and had the Neighbor personally “return the papers” along with the “It Ain’t Me” type letter, to the Deputy Sheriff that afternoon. He asked for a “Receipt” that the “Papers” had been returned for improper service.
The Deputy refused. So, The Neighbor simply said “That’s O.K., – I’ll just sign an “AFFIDAVIT” to the Court for the Chiropractor, that the “Papers” have been returned. Have a nice day !”
The Neighbor turned and left the Office. While getting into the car up the street, the Chiropractor and Neighbor noticed both the Sheriff and the Deputy running over to the Court House before “Closing Time”. They had earlier signed a “Return Of Service” to the Court Clerk, that the papers were served. They had to “remove” their signature somehow from the official Court records, because the “Papers” were back on their desk.
Two weeks later, the Chiropractor met the (would have been) “Plaintiff” in a shopping Mall. He asked “What Happened?”
The Plaintiff said “You didn’t show up, and when they called the case, the Attorneys, the Judge, and my Attorney had a ‘Side Bar consultation’. Then my Attorney told me to go home and He would be in touch with me later by letter.” In other words NOTHING HAPPENED. They never obtained “Service Of Process” on him. He has never heard another word about this incident. He raised the point that He, the real live natural man, was not the fiction PERSON named as Defendant.
The Lawyers and Judge, didn’t want the “Real” vs. “FICTION Person” issue to be raised “On the Record” in their court. They “dropped” the case.
We Free real natural flesh and blood People of GOD (not fiction Persons) should learn to avoid their Administrative courts of “Discretion”, and of ” Justice.” “Justice – collection of the amount of debt”. We are considered already guilty, the court’s only obligation is to determine the “just amount” of debt – same as the old “Star Chamber”.
This procedure was used regarding a “civil” case. However, the same philosophy applies to “Criminal” cases.
It Ain’t Me – Criminal
Notice, when they accuse one of something criminal, – they never accuse you of violating a “Law”. They can’t Their private “Lawyer-club meetings” are convened “in the interest of justice”, and/or “discretion” under the “Administration (collection of debt) of Code”.
That’s why, – even if you go out and flat-out kill someone, – they will not accuse you of “Murder”. They will accuse you of violation of some “Code Title number and section number” which stands for murder.
What they refer to as “criminal” is actually “civil-criminal”. It is really a “Contract penalty” or penal Code violation, being “administered” to fiction persons under presumption that you (We) are enjoying some “Benefit, Privilege, Title of Nobility, or opportunity offered” by government corporation. The “It Ain’t Me” letter raises “rebuttable presumption” that you (the real live natural man), are not the fiction person Defendant – despite the similar name. The important issue here is the distinction between “real” versus “fiction”. The fact that the fiction’s name is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, is only prima facie evidence that it is the fiction.
The main issue is that you are nor the fiction Defendant of a Legislature. You are real flesh & blood natural of GOD.
Example, – we had a man go into court, but he argued the name spelling (small letters vs. Capital letters). The tricky Lawyer-Judge finally said “Well then, what is your name?”. He gave his name verbally (making a contract with the court). The sneaky tricky Judge then said “Let the record show the Defendant is Mr. Blank ‘also known as’ Mr. BLANK.” She had Just by-passed the “real. vs. fiction” issue. Do NOT get hung-up on the spelling”. That is secondary. The main issue is – are you real natural flesh and Blood of GOD, or a fiction corporate “person” of government, and a “subject” therefore.
When they called his case, – What our Man should have said is “Which one? The real man or the fiction? . And repeated that phrase over and over, regardless how many times and different ways they tried to call him.
Enjoying the “Title of Nobility” as “Person” and/or “subject” is a privilege granted from government and makes you liable and subject to to’ government “Code of Conduct” for “subjects”. The lawyers presume that everyone is enjoying the benefit of corporate fiction subject” (14th Amendment, “slave on government plantation”) status and therefore owes a debt back to government (excise Tax) in return for the privilege/Benefit being enjoyed.
When one returns or “rejects” all government papers, refuses to enter a “Plea”, and refuses to “Post Bail or Bond” (for 48 hours Riverside County vs. McLaughlin), and Denies by WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT that he is the fiction Defendant, they can NOT proceed and can NOT hold you, beyond that 48 hours. And, yes, you can sue for false imprisonment,(later) for the 48 hour “unlawful detention” of a Non-fiction Subject.
It Ain’t Me IRS
A Man had a “problem” with the I.R.S. agency.
He sent every one of the “Papers” and envelopes which he had received from I.R.S., – back to them (He kept photocopies), with a photocopy of the envelopes (each Marked “Return to Sender -.No such Party at this location”) attached to the “It Ain’t Me” Cover letter.
Next time he checked – certain “Liens” which had previously been “On The Record” were marked discharged.
If you are a Flesh and Blood Man or Woman (of GOD) – DO NOT steal mail which is intended for a corporate fiction. It is against the law to keep mail which does not belong to you.
By keeping mail directed to a corporate fiction you are admitting that you must be (or you represent) that corporate fiction. When you actually Go (voluntarily) into the Court, you remove all doubt that you in fact DO “Represent” that ALL CAPITAL LETTER named fiction.
Commerce is “any promise (future performance) in ink on paper”.
Contracts are “Commerce”.
“Notes” are “Commerce” (Federal Reserve Notes, etc.).
Corporations, Trusts, Associations, are fictions on paper-Commerce
All Insurance is “Admiralty” and future promise – “Commerce”.
All Fictions are commerce.
The Courts have jurisdiction over all fiction entities and all “Commerce”.
THEREFORE’, you are “subject” to the Admiralty /Commerce /military Court, if you voluntarily show up, after returning All papers of commerce with the “It- Ain’t Me” cover letter with copies/exhibits attached to it.
The “It Ain’t Me” letter denies and challenges “Personam”, “Venue”, and “Subject Matter” Primary elements of primary jurisdiction, – which destroys their “Presumption”, is “Rebuttable Presumption”, and they must reveal their FRAUD in order to refute the Written DENIAL which is what the “It Ain’t Me” letter is. They would rather “Drop” or “dismiss” their case against you.
It Ain’t Me Tickets
A professional Over-the-road (18 wheeler) Tractor-Trailer Truck Driver, got a ticket for some rincky-dink thing, (dirt on the license plate, or cracked Lens)When he got home, he mailed CERTIFIED MAIL, the Ticket back to the Arresting officer, at his Barracks address with the Neutral Response #1 cover letter.
When the Trooper got his Ticket back, he went crying to the “Court Clerk”, who told him, “Never Mind,We’ll take care of this from here on in .
Several weeks later, Our Truck driver, got an envelope from the Clerk’s Office, with the “Ticket” in it, and a letter saying that the note sent with the “Ticket” was frivolous, without merit, without substance, and has no validity, and his Court date was still Wednesday at 2:30, and if he didn’t send in the fine to the “Voluntary Assessment Center”, before then, if he didn’t show up-for Court, a “Bench Warrant” (Capias) would be issued for his arrest for “Contempt of Court”.
Our Truck Driver, this time Bent CERTIFIED MAIL the “Ticket with the”Neutral Response #1” cover letter, back to the Court Clerk. (because it came from them this time)
Several weeks later, Our Truck driver, got another envelope from the Clerk’s Office, with the “Ticket” in it again, and a letter again saying that the note sent with the “Ticket” was frivolous, without merit, without substance, and has no validity, and his Court date was still Wednesday at 2:30, and if he didn’t send in the fine to the “Voluntary Assessment Center”, before then, if he didn’t show up for Court, a “Bench Warrant” (Capias) would be issued for his arrest for “Contempt of Court”.
NOTICE that the “Ticket” still was “returned” to him. If it so “frivolous”, how come they keep sending the “Ticket” back ?
Eventually, the Court Date came and went. Our Truck Driver did NOT go. He Never had NOTICE.
In his travels, Our Truck Driver had to pull into a “Weigh Station” and the Truck was “Overweight”, so they beckoned him into the “Scale House”, to give “the Boss” a “Ticket” (Bill) for being “Overweight”. Our man thought he would have a ration of other problems. But when he got out from the “Scale House” they said “There is nothing on your license,- so Have a Nice Day.”
Lesson: It is a “Child’s Game” of “Hot Potato, Hot Potato”. If you hold the “Papers” (Hot Potato) on Court Day, you are “it” If you don’t -You are “Not It”. They do NOT have “Service of Process”. They do NOT gain your “Appearance” in their court.
It Ain’t Me Letter
Print & Cut along dotted line
These enclosed documents were inadvertently received, and opened by mistake. These enclosed document(s), which appear to be____________________________________________________, are not understandable, acknowledgeable or recognizable under the penalty of False Personation must be returned.
The enclosure herein contains the aforementioned and misdirected documents; as there is not enough knowledge or information disclosed to form a responsive answer, said documents are being returned forthwith.
print & cut along dotted line
I inadvertently received the enclosed document(s) which appear to be
I do not know what this is all about. I do not understand or recognize these document(s).
I do not have enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.
So I am returning these document(s),
Immediately Place documents to be returned in a new envelope. Immediately Address new envelope with document sender’s address, also use this address as the return address. DO NOT use YOUR name or address on this envelope, Do not use any headings or signature on your response. The object is to return the presentment in the most neutral, non-committal manner possible Immediately. Do not rebut the issue or address anything in their documents. You simply return unwanted presentments. This is simply a misdirected posting being returned to the sender.
Human Rights / NO-TAX ACADEMY
address used without prejudice to rights
c/o UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
c/o 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in Delaware real land – Emer-ica
(not fiction military zone “DE”)
no Military fiction zone # used
It Ain’t Me Sample
David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved address used without prejudice to rights
Care of, – 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real Delaware land
Not Federal Regional District or fiction military Venue “DE”)
No military fiction Venue zip Code
Court of Common Pleas Sussex County February, 26, 1998
address used without prejudice to rights
c/o, – The Circle, Court House
military district fiction The “State Of Delaware”
military/martial fiction law district venue #19947
Dear Common Pleas Court Clerk,
Enclosed herewith, returned, rejected and refused for fraud are legal documents, postmarked (date) which were delivered fraudulently “without prejudice”, opened by “Mistake”, and they are “Returned to Sender”.
As I do not have “enough information or knowledge upon which to base a responsive answer” – it is apparently not intended for me. As I am not a trustee/fiduciary or transfer agent, and As I am not a resident or resident agent, it is apparently not intended for me.
As I am not “Trading As” “d.b.a.” or “a.k.a.” DAVID S. DERIEMER, it is apparently not intended for me.
The “Unliquidated Debt” (Res), (identified by Instrument/Document) which is the “subject-matter” of this action, is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
I do not understand these papers.
As it is illegal for me to knowingly accept or keep mail or papers particularly legal papers, that are fraudulently delivered – the are returned to you for fraud, fraudulent venue, and no valid Subject matter as pertains to me a actual live flesh and blood American man.
Any mail or other (legal) papers intended for my attention may be directed as shown: David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved
address used without prejudice to rights
Care of, – 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real
Delaware No zip Code
David S. DeRiemer, real natural man
not Corporate Fiction Person subject
What Constitutes Appearance
- WHAT CONSTITUTES APPEARANCE
- 18. In General
An appearance may he expressly made by formal written or oral declaration. or record entry,. to the. effect that -(he defendant appears, or It may lie Implied from some act done with the Intention of appearing and submitting to the court’s jurisdiction.
Quoted In: Ky.-Smith v. Gadd, 280 S.W.2d 495, 497.
Appearance by or for one defendant or person involved us constituting appearance for others is considered supra 1 13.
Library Reference Appearance 8(1). 9(l).
An appearance may either be express or it may arise by implication from defendant’s seeking, taking. or agreeing to some step or proceeding in the cause beneficial to himself or detrimental to plaintiff other than one contesting only the jurisdiction.92 or by reason of some act proceedings recognizing the case as in court, as discussed infra § 19.
At early common law the only ways in which a defendant could appear were by putting in special bail or by filing common bail as noted infra § 22, or by causing an appearance to be entered in the clerk’s office.
An appearance can usually be formally or expressly effected by filing with the clerk a written* direction or praecipe to enter the appearance of the party, by formal record entry, oral announcement in open court.”; acceptance of service by defendant attorney or by filing in the cause a paper which either waives service of process or which both waives service or process and recites the entry of an appearance. or, as more fully discussed infra § 20. in accordance with a statute or court rule providing for appearance by notice or general retainer or notice of appearance. By the filing of his suit plaintiff enters an appearance which invokes the attention of the
Statutes or rules of court prescribing the method of appearance are often regarded as exclusive to the extent that defendant must follow the prescribed mode of appearing to secure a standing in court and the right to be heard but it is sometimes held that they are not exclusive even to this extent Furthermore, it is very generally held that such statutes or rules do not precluded an appearance, sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over defendant’s Person. by some other act or method of a substantial character by which defendant intentionally invokes the court’s jurisdiction. There are a number of cases to be found which appear to regard the statutory method of appearing as completely and absolutely exclusive for all purposes; but even in (lie states where these cases were decided there are other holdings which limit and qualify them.
Unless there is a statute contemplating that the appearance be in writing, the appearance need not be in the form of a signed. writing, but may be by informal parole action. -An entry on the docket by the clerk at the oral request or defendant’s counsel is a sufficient appearance in writing within the meaning of a statute; 20 but a rule of court providing that an appearance shall be entered and marked on the margin of the record of the case by the attorney in his own handwriting is not complied with by a typewritten mane of the attorney indorsed on a conterbond filed in replevin.
Knowledge of the pending proceedings and an intention to appear are ordinarily requisite to render an act or course of conduct an appearance. An appearance is not to be inferred except as a result of acts from which an intent to do so may properly be inferred The assumption and conduct of the defense by a nominal for an actual defendant does not constitute an appearance; but where an actual wrongdoer voluntarily- appears and answers in the name of another who has been sued for the former’s wrong by mistake, the wrongdoer thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court and may be substituted as defendant A party may not appear conditionally.
An appearance induced by fraud has no efficacy
- 19. Acts or Proceedings Recognizing Case as in Court
Any act the defendant which recognizes tile can* as let court constitutes a general appearance. but. If an act does not do this or seek to Invoke affirmative action from t he court. It Is not an appearance.
Quoted In: Ark.-Sinclair Refining Co. v. Bounds, 127 S.W.2d 629 032. 198 Ark. 149.
Appearance 8(1). 9(1)
Glossary of Terms
Understanding. In the law of contracts, an agreement. An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement. whether written or oral. An Informal agreement, or a concurrence as to its terms. A valid contract engagement of a somewhat informal character. This is a loose and ambiguous term. unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. See Agreement; Contract.
Undertake. To take on oneself to engage in: to enter upon; to take in hand; set about: attempt: as, to under-take a task or a journey and, specifically, to take upon oneself. solemnly or expressly. To lay oneself under obligation or to enter into stipulation: to perform or to execute: to covenant; to contract. Hence to guarantee tee; he surety for; promise to accept or take over Is a charge, to accept responsibility for the care of. To engage to look after or attend to, as to undertake a patient or guest. To endeavor to perform or try; to promise, engage, agree, or assume an obligation.
Undertaking. A promise, engagement, or stipulation. An En ement by one of the parties to a contract to the other as distinguished from the mutual engagement of the parties to each other. It does not necessarily imply a consideration. In a somewhat special sense, a promise given in the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel. generally as a condition to obtaining some concession from the court or the opposite party. A promise or security in any form. See Stipulation.
Undertook. Agreed; promised; assumed, This is the technical word to be used in alleging the promise which forms the basis art action of assumption.
Undisclosed Agency. Exists where agent deals with a third person without notifying that person of the agency.
APPEARANCE. In practice. A coming Into court as party to a suit, whether as plaintiff or defendant. Stephens v. Ringling, 102 S.C. 333, 86 S. E. 683, 685, The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Flint v. Comly, 95 Me. 251, 49 A. 1044. The voluntary submission to a court’s jurisdiction. Pacilio v. Scarpati, 300 N.Y.S. 473, 478, 165 Misc. 586; Braman v. Braman, 25S N.Y.S. 181, 186, 236 App.Div. 164.
“Appearance” Is the act of appearing, coming. or being In sight, becoming visible or clear to apprehension of the mind, of being known as subject of observation or comprehension, or as a thing proved, of being obvious or manifest. Hallack & Howard Lumber Co. v. Bagly, 100 Colo. 402, 68 P.2d 442, 443.
Appearance anciently meant an actual coming Into court,either person or by attorney. Appearance may be made by the party In person or by his agent Everett Ry. Light .A Co. v. U. S.. D.C. Wash., 2.16 F. 806. 808. But in criminal cases the personal appearance or the accused In court is often necessary.
An appearance may be either general or special; the former Is a simple and unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court, the latter a submission to the jurisdiction for some specific purpose only, not for All the purposes of the suit. Louisville At N. R. Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois. 282 111. 136, 118 N.E. 483, 483. A special Appearance is for the purpose of testing the ?urn.-icncy (it service or the Jurisdiction of the court,. a general Appearance Is made where the defendant waives defects of service and submits to the jurisdiction State Huller, 23 N.M. 306. 168 P. 528. 534. 1 A.L.R. 170.
An appearance may also be either Compulsory or voluntary fie former where it is compelled by process served Co.% the I lie latter where It is entered by Is own will or consent without the service of process ‘In rough process may so outstanding I Barb. Ch. Pr. 77. It is sold to be optional when entered by a person who Intervenes In the action to protect his own Interests. though not joined as a party; It occurs In Chancery practice, especially In England; conditional, when Coupled with conditions as to its becoming or being taken 03 a general Appearance: gratis, when made by a party in the action, but before the service of nil y process or legal notice to appear: do asse, asse, when en made provisionally or to remain good only upon a future contingency: or when designed to permit a party to a proceeding to refuse to sub his 0 the of the court unless It F. it his person to the that he has forever waived that right. Farmers Trust Co. V. Alexander 334 Pa. 434. 6 A.2d 262. 265: subsequent, when made toy a defendant after An appearance has already been entered for Ill Jl, by the plaintiff Corporal, when the person Is physically present in court
An answer constitutes an “appearance” Weiser Richter 2-17 Mich. 52, 225 N.W. 542, 343. A party who answers, consents to a continuance, goes to trial. takes an appeal, or does any other substantial act In a cause. Although he has not been served with summons. Is deemed to have entered his -appearance- unless he objects and preserves his protests to the jurisdiction of his person. Robinson v. Bossinger, 295 Ark. 445. 112 S.W.2d 637 640. Acts of an attorney In prosecuting an action on behalf of his client constitute an -appearance.Pacillo v. Scarpati, 300 N.Y.S. 473. 165 Wisc. 586.
CONSENT.A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Twin v. Pure Oil Co., C.Minn.. 26 F.Supp. Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 0 t. 134, 24 P. 858 860.
Consent is an act of reason. accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as In a balance the good or evil on each side. I Story. Eq.Jur. 222; Lervick v. White Top Cabs. La. App. 10 So.2d 67, 73. It means voluntary agreement by a person In the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another. People v. Kanglesser.44 Cal.App. 345 186 P. 398. 389. It supposes a physical power to act. a moral power of acting, mind a serious. determined, and free use of these powers. Fonblanque. Eq. b. 1. c. 2. a. 1: New Jersey Mfrs’ Casualty Ins. Co. 148 A. 790, 791. 106 N.J.L. 238. Consent Is Implied In every agreement It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes, even a mistake Heine v. Wright.76 338 244 P. 955
There Is a difference between consenting and submit Every consent Involves a submission: but a mere submission does not necessarily Involve consent. 9 Car. & P. 722 “Consent” Is an active acquiescence as distinguished from “assent.” meaning a silent acquiescence. People v. Lowe. 205 N.Y.S. 77, 73, 209 APP.Div, 496.
“Consent” means an active circumstance of concurrence: -assent” Is a passive act of concurrence before another does the act charged, Perryman v. State. 63 Gn App. 919. 12 S.E.2d 383. 390 But the two terms may be used Interchangeably. Bartlett v. Sundin, 109 N.Y.S. 391, 393. 182 App.Dlv. 117.
“Consent” is sometimes synonymous merely with “waiver.” Dahiquist v. Denver & R. 0. R. Co.. 52 Utah. 438, 174 P. 933. 8-1-1. See. also. See Gmiller v. Day. C.C.A.Ill.. 249 F. 177. ],’A: Toledo Fence & Post Co. v. Lyons. C.C.A-0hlo. 290 F. 637 640.
As used In the law of rape “consent’* means consent of the will, and submission under the Influence of fear or ter, for cannot amount to real consent. Hallmark v. State. 722 212 P. 322 328. There must be an exercise of Intelligence based on knowledge or Its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent. State v. Schwab. 109 Ohipp St. 532. 143 N. E. 29. 31 And If woman resists In the point where resistance would be unless or until her resistance to over force or violence. submission thereafter Is not “consent fit”. People v. Mclivain 130 P 2d 131 135 55 Cal. App.2d 322
Implied Consent. That manifested by signs. actions, or facts, or by action or silence, which raise false it presumption that the consent has been given. Avery v. State. 12 Ga.App. 562. 77 S.E. 892. See State v. Horton. 247 Mo. 657, 153 S.W. 1051, 1053; White v. WhIte, 84 N.J.Eq. 512. 95 A. 197. 199.
ACCEPT. To receive with approval or satisfaction to receive with intent to retain. See Morris v. State, 102 Ark. 513, 145 S.W. 2 1-1. Also, In the capacity of drawee of a bill, to recognize the draft, and engage to pay It when due. It Is not equivalent to “acquiesce.” Applett v. Empire Inv 4″), 99 Or, 533, 197 11. 461, Admit and agrees Ito, accede Ito or consent lit; receive with approval; adopt ; agree to to. Rocha v. Hulen, 6 Cal.App.2d 2-15. 44 P.2d .178, 482, 483. Street committee’s and city engineer’s reports. City of Morehead v. Blair, 243 Ky. 84, 47 S.W.2d 741, 742. Means something more than to receive, meaning to adopt, to agree to carry out provisions. Assignee of lease, Pickier v. Mershon. 212 Iowa. 447. 236 N.W. 382, 385: Central State Bank v. Herrick, 214 Iowa 379, 240 N.W. 242, 246. Renewal health and accident policy premiums, Prescott v. Mutual Ben. Health and Accident Ass’n, Fla., 193 So. 311, 314, 119 A.L.R. 525.
ACCEPTANCE. The taking and receiving of anything in good part, and as it were a tacit agreement to a preceding act, which might have been defeated or avoided if such acceptance had not been made. Brooke, Abr. The act of a person to whom a thing Is offered or tendered by another, whereby he receives the thing with the intention of retaining it, such intention being evidenced by a sufficient act. eEtna Inv. Corporation v. Chandler Landscape & Floral Co., 227 Mo.App 17, 50 S.W.2d 195, 197.
The exercise of power conferred by an offer by performance of some act. In re Larney’s Estate, 266 N.Y.S. 564, 143 Misc. 871
Bills of Exchange
An engagement to pay the bill in money when due. 4 East 72; Hunt v. Security State Bank, 91 Or. 362, 179 P. 248, 251.
The act by which the person on whom a bill of exchange Is drawn (called the “drawee”) assents to the request of the drawer to pay it, or. In other words. engages or makes himself liable. to pay It when due. Bell-Wayland Co. v Bank of Sugden. 95 Oki. 67, 218 P, 705. It may be by parol or In writing, and either general or special. absolute or conditional: and It may be Impliedly as well as expressly given. 3 Kent. Comm. 93, 85; Story. Bills. 11 238, 251 Telegram directing drawer to draw draft. 140 ffer v. Eastland Nat. Bank, Tex.Clv.App.. 169 S.W.2d M. 278. Certification at request of the payee or holder. Welch v. Bank of Manhattan Co.. 35 N.Y.S.2d SN. 895, 264 App.Div, 906 But the usual and regular mode of acceptance Is by the drawee’s writing across the face of the bill the word “accepted.” and subscribing his name; after which he is termed the acceptor.
UNDERSTAND. To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. Western Indemnity Co. v. MacKcchnic, Tex.Civ.App., 21-1 S.W. 456,460; International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. CIv.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full till and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. Fox v. Schaefrer, 131 Conn. 439, 41 A.2d 46, 49.
Thus, to Invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not understand the nature of the act. the grantor must be Incapable of comprehending that the effect of the act would divest him of the title to the land set forth In the deed. Miller v. Folsom, 49 Okl. 74, 149 P. 1 185. 1188. As used in connection with the execution of wills and other Instruments, the term Includes the realization of the practical effects and consequences of the proposed act. Tillman V. Ogren. 99 Misc. 539. 166 N.Y.& 39, 40.
UNDERSTANDING. In the law of contracts. An agreement. Southern Ry. Co. v. Powell, 124 Va. 65, 97 S.E. 357, 358. An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement, whether written or oral. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., D.C.Mo.. 234 F. 127, 148. An informal agreement, or a concurrence as to Its terms. Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N.W. 16.
A valid contract engagement of a somewhat Informal character. Winslow v. Lumber Co., 32 Minn. 23S, 20 N.W. 145. This In a loose and ambiguous term, unless It be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. Camp v. War. ing, 25 Conn. 529.
‘The term may also import simply a wish or hope, as in a will bequeathing property to another with the -understandIngthat at the legatee’s death, all property derived under the will should be riven to Vie testatrtx’s sister. Vincent v. Rix. 127 Misc. 639, 217 N.Y.S. 393, 399.
UNDERSTOOD The phrase “it Is understood,”when employed as a word of contract In a written
agreement. has the same force as the words “it Is agreed.- Phoenix Iron & Steel Co. v. Wilkoff
Co., C.C.A.Ohlo, 25:1 F. 165, 167; Mertz v. Fleming, 185 Wis. 58, 200 N.W. 655, 656.
UNDERTAKE To take on oneself; to engage In: (0 enter upon; to take III hand; set about; fittempt; as, to undertake a task; a Journey; and, specifically, to take upon oneself solemnly or expressly; to lay oneself under obligation or to enter into stipulation-, to perform or to execute; to covenant; contract; hence to guarantee be surety for; promise; to accept or take over as a charge; to accept responsibility for the care of; to engage to look after or attend to; as to undertake a patient or guest Lowe v. Poole, 235 Ala. 441, 179 So. 536, !,10. To endeavor to perform, try, to promise, engage or agree, assume an obligation. Torelie v. Templeman, 94 Mont. 149, 21 P.2d 60.
UNDERTAKING. A promise, engagement, or stipulation. Ali engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, as distinguished from t1he mutual engagement of the parties to each other. 5 East 17; 4 B. & Aid. 595, followed In Alexander v. State, 28 Tex.App. 186, 3.2 S.W. 595. It does not necessarily Imply a consideration. Thompson v. Blanchard, 3 N.Y. 335.
In a somewhat special sense, a promise given In the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel, generally as a condition to obtaining some concession from the court or the opposite party. Sweet.
A promise or security In any form. Code, Iowa, 1 43, pax. 20.
An official undertaking such as one by a county clerk or other officer under statutes, unlike an official bond. Is not required I ed to be signed by the principal Fleisdiner v. Florcy, 111 Or. 35. =4 P. 833, 832.
Statement to make before a “fiction court”
“Under”- 1.) in or to a position below or beneath something. 3.) in or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or unconsciousness.
“Standing” – n. lb: a position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights and duties.
“Understanding” – n. 3c: a mutual agreement not formally entered into but in some degree binding on each side. “Understanding” – adj. 1: fully apprehended.
“Apprehend” – 1a: to take hold of. 1b: arrest, seize. 3: to grasp with the understanding; be fully aware of; understand, grasp.
“Fiction” – 1a: something invented by the imagination or feigned.
“Feign”-la: to represent by a false appearance of. Pretense, dissemble.
“Dissemble” 1: to hide under false appearance. 2: to put under the appearance of: simulate – vi: to put on a false appearance, conceal facts, intentions, of feelings under some pretense.
“Statement – before a fictitious court”, “I Do Not understand as to feign or dissemble, or to be so understood as to be fully apprehended, for to do so would be under false pretense, therefore, I Do Not have understanding”
SECOND STATEMENT (follow-up) if necessary. “I Do NOT understand, for I may be beneath a position from which YOU may assert your legal rights, and may create an agreement not formally entered into, but in some degree binding, and this may cause me to be falsely understood, fully apprehended, and dissembled, therefore, I Do NOT have understanding”
See “Fiction of Law”
FICTION OF LAW
Fiction of law. An assumption or supposition of law that something which Is or may be false Is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. An assumption. for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. A rule of law which assumes as true. and will not allow to be disproved something which is false, but not impossible. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co.. 30 N.I.Eq. 531. 23 A 2d 607, 621
In their “Fiction” Court Their “discretion” is YOU LOSE – regardless how much “Proof” or evidence of how “Right” you are.
Notice of Non Appearance
(Note: Serve this NOTICE on “Agencies”, extortionists, Captors,
Pirates; Ransomers, “Jailers”, or “police” – not on Court)
“NOTICE OF NON APPEARANCE” based upon NO UNDERSTANDING and NO CONSENT based upon
“I did NOT “understand”, – if and when I did sign anything, and you have to prove I did understand”. (See Garrett v. Moore McCormack Co.)
“An Appearance induced by Fraud (legal coercion, physical duress, or fictitious party) has no efficacy” (Stultz v. Stultz, 94A.2d 527, 24 N.J.Super, 354, 6 C.J.S. §18)
per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) “MOTION TO DISMISS due to lack of jurisdiction. (Do NOT touch the issue)
“Holding or detaining beyond 48 hours without “charging” or “booking” is unlawful” per COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991)
- U.S. vs. IKE KOZMINSKY et al 487 US 931, 934 (no involuntary servitude)
- GARRETT vs. MOORE-McCORKACK Co. 317 U.S. 238 (no full understanding = no meeting of minds = no intent)
- COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991) (No incarceration beyond 48 hours without “charging” or “booking”)
- MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 “You have the right to remain silent (and NOT make “Appearance” by a statement) or the court will appoint a Lawyer for you, who will make an “Appearance” for you and grant the Court “Jurisdiction” for you.
Note: We must file with Court: 1. “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” (failure to (object] reserve your rights,- waives your rights).
- “DEMAND TO DISMISS” due to lack of jurisdiction (no consent to use “Code”) and denial of “Due Process” therefor, due to no “consent”. (per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) MOTION TO DISMISS -no jurisdiction)
Dated: August 25, 1998
real live flesh and blood Natural Man
Private Party Foreign State
Non “corporate fiction person subject”
Getting Orders from England
FEDREAL JUDGE STATES
IN COURT THAT
HE GETS HIS ORDERS
From STEPHEN KIMBOL AMES, Tel.
717-567-7675. 5/98: [quoting]
During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: “I take my orders from
England. This is not a law this court goes by.”
For all of those who did not believe that the United States was under Great Britain here it is straight from the mouth of a Federal Judge. How much more evidence ‘do you need?’ America has never been Free. The Revolutionary war was a fraud perpetrated on the American people. The war’s purpose was to centralize power and make the people easier to control. All Federal Judges, Congressmen, U.S. Attorneys, State Judges, Legislators and most Attorneys know this and are in fact British Agents. Their job is to keep the people in line and to be productive slaves which they (The British Agents) are greatly compensated for. The police do not know that they work for Great Britain they too have been decieved so don’t attack them.
It is time for everyone in America to know the Truth. Let us all work together in exposing the British Empire. Please re-fax and e-mail this release to every Attorney, Judge, and Legislator in your area to let them know they have been unmasked. Please get out your Yellow Pages and start faxing everyone in your area and also read this release over every radio show possible. We have printed thousands of evidence packages and mailed them across America that prove that the United States is a British Colony. It is time to send the British back to England. We must work together because if, we do not. we are all doomed.
Stephen Kinbol Ames Jr.
For More Information: Stephen Kinbol Ames, c/o P.O. Box 5373. Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110
Phone: 717-567-7675; Fax-717-567-2564
(And if one needs any further information, see August 22, 1997issue of Intelligence Review article “Britain’s ‘Invisible’ Empire Unleashes The Dogs of War”) [End quoting]
Here is very good verification or what Hatonn has been telling us all along – “from the horse’s mouth”
One man said to the court, “The Constitution says “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”, but this court constantly Does, so this court must not be “The State”. If you are not “the State”, Who the Hell are you people?” Court said, “Case Dismissed”, “record sealed”.
Another man, told them “I am not a “subject” of the British Crown, and the Court Rules and State Codes are “Copyrighted”, and I do Not have permission to use them, therefore the Prosecution cannot use them against me.” – “case dismissed”, “record sealed”.
Another man was ORDERED to get an Attorney before the next HEARING
date or he would be put in jail. The date arrived, and the Judge said, “Well do o have an attorney?” The man said “Judge, I tried, but I couldn’t find an attorney who was qualified and willing to take my case, who was not an “Esquire”. “Case Dismissed” , “Record Sealed”
Steven Ames’ (of Harrisburg, Pensylvania) Father denied that he was a British “Subject”. The Judge said “You prove you are Not one.”
The reason that the Court “seals the records”, seems to be that they (Judges/Lawyers) do NOT want the knowledge to get out:
- that the Courts-are NOT Courts of Law, but Courts of ” “Subject” Code Behavior Administration”.
- that the Courts are Not Courts of the State government (with separation of powers), but “private meetings” of “Lawyers” only.
- that all “Lawyers”, and therefore all “Judges”, are “Esquire” – a “Title of Nobility” granted by the British Crown, via InterNational Bar- Lawyer organization of London, England.
- that all these “Private courts” use “private copyrighted” Court Rules” and published private “Codes”, copyrighted by England.
- that the Lawyer-Courts ignore “State Law” and also “State Code”, if
and when it suits their purpose – their purpose is Courts convened in
the “interests of Justice”. (Justice = collection of “just amount” of
- that the courts’ purpose is to collect from and administer behavior of “Debtors” to the British Crown, without The People knowing that they are serfs/vassals/slaves on the British Crown’s Colony titled “United States” (fiction) and/or one of its member corporation fiction States.
7 that all Courts are “Military Occupation” Courts of the British Crown, per Treaties.
- that the American People are actually “slaves of Feudalism” by the
British Crown per Treaties, and always have been,- and under the feudal
Law of ENGLAND through the language of modern STATUTE Law. The
Constitution was a “Con” from the start