- Fraud vitiates all!
- Steven Wayne Pattison: Most of what they do is without “Delegated Authority” and again is “Null and Void” from the time they did it.
- Fraud vitiates all!: Open Letter to Congressman Walden | Scanned
- Sorry Mr. Bundy—It was not the Contracts—It was the deceit and misrepresentation of the criminal impersonators posing as the BLM. Fraud Vitiates ALL!
- harvieux: “Fraud vitiates all.”
On Jan 23, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Arnie Rosner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thank you for your expansion on the subject. However, perhaps you will take the time to explain…
What is the point on even attempting to recognize a fraudulent system that is fraudulent? I am baffled…in light of the following?
Therefore—the Hammonds are being falsely accused, falsely charged and falsely incarcerated as political prisoners.
Just an opinion, mind you, but as just one of the people, it appears to me that Sheriff Ward seems to have compromised his lawful delegated authority…something he has no lawful authority to do and such an act must be construed as treason against the people and the organic Constitution.
At the people’s option, the people could accept Sheriff Ward’s failure to honor his oath of office as a voluntary resignation and immediate hold lawful public elections to replace the current vacant office of sherif with a legitimate public officer and Constitutional Sheriff who will uphold the lawful oath of office of the Harney County sheriff.
And at the same time, the American people being politically manipulated under the color of law by the criminal impersonators of the obama administration, the state of Oregon, county of Harney and their US Corporate representative Greg Walden, who is criminally impersonating a representative of the people of Harney County.
Mr. Walden, in a recent speech broadcast on C-span, has also confessed to several related crimes including treason. Please see link below for more details:
“You only think you know!”
<Flag of peace signature 2016-01-20_06-25-23_AM.jpg>
The flag of the Continental united States of America
714-501-8247 – mobile
On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:36 PM, HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart <email@example.com> wrote:
Thank-you for your question.
In my description I wrote: “This is all standard law, and when you use it, other courts, corporate courts who have committed to be constrained by it thru their charter and ratified rules of civil procedure and their state constitutions, and even federal courts constrained by the Congress ratified Title 28 USC, must accept your removal Notices as a matter of law.”
When the old court, which is the court that the case is removed from, continues to fraudulently act without jurisdiction after the removal, called “in corum non-judice”, the old court is trespassing against your civil rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
You must file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeal to prevent further operation of the old court, on the basis that the case has been removed to another court, and that all parties to the case were notified, and the old judge was previously given a courtesy copy of the filings of Notice of Removal and Notice of Notice of Removal with proofs of service upon the clerk of the old court, and all the parties to the case. The petition for Writ of Mandamus would say that the behavior of the old trial court is in denial of civil rights, and therefore is not merely judicial error, but rises to the level of judicial misconduct.
You would be seeking to restrain the old trial court due to lack of jurisdiction, and the judge in the old trial court for disqualification for cause due to denial of civil rights, judicial misconduct, judicial disability, and bias and prejudice by the judge against the remover, petitioner.
The court of appeal can be the corporate court of appeal, which should uphold your petition under the rule of law.
The Court of Appeal ruling is binding upon the old corporate trial court.
Again, this is standard law and procedure.
Sometimes people feel that they are being treated unfairly because of lack of knowledge and impatience.
One of the things that you are seeking is to build a written record. Remember, these are courts of record. Everything must be in the record first in order to appeal it. File lots of notices and lots of Declarations and Affidavits. This is why pro se litigants are always counseled to bring 4 to 6 witnesses with them everytime that they go to court, so that each person can provide a first hand testimony of what happened, that can be mandatory judicially noticed pursuant to Fed. Rule of Evidence, rule 201(d), to support all of your allegations of rights violations ($15M x # of rights violated x # of persons violating those rights pursuant to Macias v. Eide, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals).
HI&RH Prince William-Bullock III: Stewart
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 10:14 AM, Arnie Rosner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
And when the “old Court,” refuses to cooperate?