Sovcit – Hartford van Dyke

I had no idea that van Dyke was released. The “Friends of Liberty Network” talks to Hartford van Dyke in the State of Washington.

He has some interesting stories about Pearl Harbor.

My name is Hartford Van Dyke. My father was the Lyle H. Van Dyke that is cited in almost every federal brief written against so-called ‘common law liens’.

“My father’s uncle Gerald Mason Van Dyke was the man in the intelligence department in the Hawaiian Islands that sent the warning message to Washington D.C. Thursday afternoon December 4th 1941 at 2:00 pm Hawaiian time (7:00pm Washington D.C. time) warning the U.S. government U.S. Naval intelligence of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor Sunday Dec. 7th 1941.

“His message was received in Naval Intelligence sixty-six hours before the Pearl Harbor attack by Rear Admiral Paulis Prince Powell and relayed to Secretary of Navy Knox and Under Secretary of the Navy James Vincent Forrestal.

Source

Hartford was sentenced for filing “commercial liens” by the District Court of Oregon

SENTENCING DATE: 7/28/03; IMPRISONMENT: Count 1 – 60 months; Counts 3 through 15: 37 months as to each count, to run concurrently with each other and consecutive with the sentence imposed in Count 1; Count 2 – 37 months, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Count 1 and Counts 3 through 15; SUPERVISED RELEASE: 5 years; RESTITUTION: $20,395.83, joint and several with John S Nolan; SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100 for each count, total of $1,500.00

What did they do? I am still trying to put together the pieces

“Nolan and Van Dyke filed a lien against the company with the Oregon Supreme Court. Although it wasn’t binding, they allegedly issued fictitious financial instruments against the company’s accounts.”

He believes that if you file an affidavit against someone, like the Sheriff, he no longer holds any power over you until he fully answers this.

Oh my… They tried this in the Oregon case, but the judge did not appear to be intimidated or impressed by the ‘arguments’.

He also believes that he has several billion dollars worth in liens against some people in the State of Washington. Oh my…

Darby believed him… Sad. Luckily he did not get charged for his foolish attempts.

As a “Anti-Government Movement Guidebook”  observes:

Several years ago, Hartford Van Dyke asserted an argument that one could file commercial liens against other parties via an ancient process which he only recently discovered. The advocates of this argument claimed that history showed the use of this process and that the “law” was full of cases where this process had been used with success. In an effort to confirm the validity of this argument, I tried to find any mention in history or the law of this process but came up empty handed. But this deficiency did not matter for these advocates and they filed liens all over the place against judges and all sorts of other public officials. I only comment in passing that many of the people who became involved with this endeavor had their lives ruined. What about the 17 innocent members of the Missouri common law court who filed liens against a local judge? Some of these unfortunate souls are presently incarcerated for 7 years. What about Leroy Schwitzer and the other Freemen now in jail in Montana? What about Grant McEwan?

A 1983 Oregon case. Did this involve van Dyke’s father? Or was it the same van Dyke

The United States brought this action to deter persons commonly described as “tax protesters” from filing various documents with county clerks. The documents in question are meaningless, void writings designated as “Common Law Liens.” The forms upon which some of the liens are drafted are copyrighted to one Gerald Hanson, who delights in filing frivolous lawsuits. See Hanson v. Goodwin, 432 F.Supp. 853, 856-858 (D.Wash.1977). The “Common Law Liens” are primitive affairs, basically consisting of captions such as “Common Law Lien on the Property and Hand Signature of the Following Persons,” followed by a list of people. There is no explanation of how the “lien” arose, nor a recital of any legal action pending or concluded against the named parties. Tax protestors apparently obtain the names and addresses of employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other federal employees, and file these “liens” out of spite against the named individuals.

The so-called “liens” are of course invalid and of no legal force or effect. However, they are used by persons such as Mr. Van Dyke and Mr. Randolph to harass IRS employees and deter them from enforcing the tax laws. The tax protestors, while claiming to act in the interests of freedom and personal liberty, use this weapon to harass private individuals in their private lives, as part of the tax protestors’ campaign. See United States v. Hart, 545 F.Supp. 470, 473-475 (D.N.D.1982), aff’d, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir.1983).

Yes, as van Dyke stated above

My father was the Lyle H. Van Dyke that is cited in almost every federal brief written against so-called ‘common law liens’

van Dyke talks about his interactions with a ‘bug eyed’ person from the Secret Service. He talked to the FBI in Vancouver about all his information. They ‘left him alone’ for 5 years while he was putting ‘notes on the street’. He was a pioneer of the idea and nobody has found any fault in it, not even after prison time, and they have never been challenged.

The VFW is entitled to 400 million dollars from one of these notes… ROTFL… Let’s see when they try to ‘spend’ the note. It’s a lot of money, and well worth the effort to cash in on it… If the counties were to broker their own notes… He really believes that these notes have any commercial value.

I can’t wait… But you can check out some of the pretty pictures

The Thom Satterlee mentioned in the above PDF is recently died in a mud slide. A sovereign citizen who wanted his county

According to Everett’s Herald newspaper, Satterlee has frequently advocated that a portion of Snohomish County dubbed Freedom County by supporters secede from the United States. Over the years, Satterlee has been convicted of practicing law without a license, seen his non-existent county’s sheriff jailed, and had the Secret Service confiscate “public wealth rebate notes” he attempted to redeem at a bank.

also

June 1997 — U.S. Secret Service agents confiscate “public wealth rebate notes” that Satterlee attempted to redeem at a local bank, in part to fund Freedom County. The notes, which have a purported face value of $38 million, supposedly get their value from liens filed by anti-government activists against federal officials.

source

 

Dave Darby and the ‘right to file’

Our friend David Darby, whose property was recently auctioned off to pay for $24,000 of unpaid taxes, released an interesting affidavit in which he ‘argues’ that the County Clerk of the Washington Superior Court has a duty under 18 US Code 1001 to file whatever is brought before him/her. Darby had attempted to file a “criminal complaint lien”.

However, a careful reading of the code shows that

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

The clerk of the County Superior Court, however, is not within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the government of the United States.

So what are the rules under the Statutes of the State of Washington?

The County Clerk is an elected official provided for by the Washington State Constitution whose responsibilities are assigned by local and state rules and statute.

Source

The Criminal Complaint Lien appears to be a conflation of two concepts: a Criminal Complaint and a lien. Note that the Rule of Criminal Procedure outline the nature of a complaint in rule CrRLJ 2.1

Nature. The complaint shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the prosecuting authority.

The “commercial criminal lien” is based on the work of Hartford van Dyke

Read more about van Dyke in this 1997 Seattle Times article

The document was filed Tuesday in federal court by Hartford Van Dyke Jr. of Battle Ground, Clark County, on behalf of the National Association for Commercial Accountability and nine people charged in an alleged conspiracy against the government.

Two of the nine already have pleaded guilty. A U.S. District Court jury is deliberating the charges against the others who are members of or have ties to the Washington State Militia and Freemen.

Harftord was convicted in 2003

Jones said he gave Nolan the minimum sentence because he admitted his guilt and promised not to appeal his conviction. Nolan’s apology also helped, he said.

Van Dyke, on the other hand, is a “hopeless sociopath” who will “continue his activities until he dies,” the judge said.

Van Dyke and Nolan represented themselves during a seven-day trial marked by long explanations that the judge repeatedly called irrelevant.

The psychiatric evaluations ordered by the judge determined the men were fit for sentencing.

Darby referenced the Hartford van Dyke fund and I am sure the court and the taxing agency just ignored his follies. I guess Darby may count himself lucky that the clerk refused to file the lien, or, otherwise, he might have found himself spending some time on Uncle Sam’s dime.

 

 

“We the People” and the right to petition

Part of the “Sovereign Citizen” myth is that public officers have a duty to respond to your inquiries. Whether presented as a duty under the first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, or a claim that these people “work for us”, they invariably fail to impress the courts. Note that there are statutory requirements that the government addresses petitions for redress, such as FOIA requests or certain court filings and other enumerated instances. Recently, we have seen how defendants like Rodney Class, submit documents in which they ask the court questions. The court is under no obligation to respond to such filings, and in fact, the court should not respond to such filings in the interest of justice.

In We The People v US, US District Court of DC, Civil Action No. 04-1211, (2005) many plaintiffs sued the US, arguing amongst others, that the defendants had failed to respond to their inquiries and therefore had violated their first amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Continue reading

Coming Soon to the Comedy Channel…

The Post and Email has announced that:

(Sep. 17, 2014) — Professional filmmaker William (Wilky) Fain has informed The Post & Email that a video depicting the efforts of CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) to expose corruption within the Tennessee judiciary is nearing the stage when it will be presented to an agent for consideration as the basis for a documentary.

HT: Zeke

I interpret this to mean that they are hoping that the Comedy Channel will have a late night slot available? Note that contrary to some claims, Walt has done almost nothing to expose corruption within the Tennessee Judiciary.

We will hear how the 5th Amendment Grand Jury presentment clause, which has never been incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the States, somehow determines how the State of Tennessee should run its own Grand Jury system. I guess, they are not great believers in state rights.

We will hear how for decades and more, the statutes of the State of Tennessee have allowed the Judge to appoint the foreperson of the Grand Jury as the 13th “Grand Juror” from the population at large. We will learn how such appointments, which are valid for 2 years, can be extended for multiple consecutive periods. We will learn how the State of Tennessee has corrupted the courts by applying its statutes correctly.

We will learn that in spite of the clear history that the Court may appoint the foreperson from the eligible population at large, the courts have been subverting justice by doing so exactly. How dare they not follow the principles laid out by Mr Fitzpatrick…

In light of all this evidence it is clear that the State of Tennessee and the Judiciary are guilty of following their laws and statutes.

Oh the comedy that ensued…

 

 

WA – Sovcit – David Darby’s home foreclosed

The David Darby sage has reached its next stage. His home has been foreclosed on and the new owner will have to deal with Darby’s unwillingness to leave the property. David Darby has been challenging the taxation powers of his county for some time now and managed to build up a significant back log in taxes owed. He has been trying to argue that the 1878 Constitution is the official Washington State Constitution and that the 1889 version was never really officially adopted. I have shown how he appears to be somewhat confused about what happened. Unfortunate to find out that he has gambled it all, and for nothing.

The county’s treasurer’s office sold the property for $63,099. David Darby, who hadn’t paid taxes on his Amboy property since 2008, owed the county nearly $23,000. If the sale goes through, the treasurer’s office expects to recoup Darby’s unpaid taxes from the new owner, along with other fees associated with the auction. The property has a total taxable value of $154,712.

Source: The Columbian

 

Debunking the CLGJ – Scalia

And other problems with the Dixie County “Common Law Grand Jury”

Grand Jury Foreman seems to think that the United States Supreme Court case United States v Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), authorizes common law grand juries. It does no such thing. Here’s what it says:

  1. It holds that grand juries are empaneled by a judge.
  2. It holds that the judge can’t tell the grand jury what to do after he has empaneled it.
  3. It holds that the proper advisor to the grand jury is the duly constituted prosecutor.

As Blackstone described the prevailing practice in 18th century England, the grand jury was “only to hear evidence on behalf of the prosecution[,] for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an enquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 300 (1769); see also 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 157 (1st Am. ed. 1847). So also in the United States.