Funny… Totally unsupported by any legal arguments. Trying to argue that under common law, they have a right to arrest a person and serve a warrant. Fascinating failures to understand the law in these matters. This matter came from the “common court”, ROTFL.
As to failure to understand HRS 1.1
§1-1 Common law of the State; exceptions. The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of Hawaii in all cases, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the State, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage; provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State. [L 1892, c 57, §5; am L 1903, c 32, §2; RL 1925, §1; RL 1935, §1; RL 1945, §1; RL 1955, §1-1; HRS §1-1]
2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
In other words, since the acts of the legislature of Florida has dealt with the grand jury, and since the Federal rules also provide for the Grand Jury, there is clearly no foundation for a common law grand jury in Florida.
Class was arrested by Capitol police when he told them that he had firearms in his illegally parked car on the Capitol grounds in DC.
Class argues that a firearm does not include the weapons he had in his car. The definition of firearm is found in 18 USC 921
(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
A funny Sov Cit case. A little legal understanding could do miracles for the defendant but alas.
|Case title: USA v. CLASS
||Date Filed: 09/03/2013
Some people have ‘argued’ that the Sheriff in our nation holds a special role. The court in Delaware found that historically speaking the role was in support of the court and involved the delivery of subpoenas and other administrative work. Any law enforcement roles were merely incidental. A good historical overview is given of the role of the Sheriff.
Because the common law arrest power of a sheriff was not fundamental, but was merely incidental, to his role as a “conservator of the peace” when the 1776, 1792, 1831, and 1897 Delaware Constitutions were adopted, the arrest power can be modified or even eliminated by statute. Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed on that basis.
Source: Christopher v Sussex County, decided, October 7, 2013
Orly is being punked but she may not realize it…
But now the woman who has carried the birther torch in more devoted fashion than anyone has revealed a political motive: She says she hopes a case now before the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will “influence the fall election and get more Republicans elected.”
Source: The Union
A poster going by the name Rickey has posted the final nail in the coffin of Harry Bounel, who had been identified by Orly as the true owner of President Obama’s SSN.
The facts are that Harry Boymel (not Bounel) has a SSN 080-18-6078 which is nothing close to President Obama’s SSN.
Will Orly inform all the courts of her mistakes?
Source: Rickey at Dr Conspiracy
In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y.1985) is often used to argue that the US attorney shall on request of any person, forward such information to the Grand Jury. The problem with such is that it can only be enforced by the Court if the plaintiff has standing to raise the issue. This requires the plaintiff to have standing to enforced the duty.
Mohwish’s request that his evidence be presented to the grand jury is, unlike his other requests, at least plausible. Section 3332 says on its face that the U.S. Attorney “shall” present to the grand jury information provided by “any person,” and one district court has held that any person has standing to enforce this duty. See In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (granting mandamus to enforce § 3332); see also Simpson, 902 F.Supp. at 254 (dictum). In our view, however, Mohwish does not have standing to enforce the statute.
In order to have standing to sue in federal court, Article III of the Constitution of the United States requires that a complainant have suffered an injury in fact, which the Supreme Court has defined as the invasion of a concrete, imminent, and legally cognizable interest. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 573 n. 8, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2143 n. 8, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (individual can enforce procedural rights only if “the procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of his standing”). A legally cognizable interest means an interest recognized at common law or specifically recognized as such by the Congress. See id. at 578, 112 S.Ct. at 2145 (noting that the Congress may “elevat[e] to the status of legally cognizable injuries concrete, de facto injuries that were previously inadequate in law”).
See also Sibley v Obama
Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Sibley also seeks mandamus to require Machen to inform the grand jury of plaintiff’s identity and President Obama’s alleged wire fraud, as well as to reveal what action or recommendation was taken regarding this entreaty. The Court will deny the mandamus request, in keeping with prior decisions 22*22 that 28 U.S.C. § 1332 cannot be enforced by private individuals. See, e.g., Wagner v. Wainstein, 2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 16026, at *2 (D.C.Cir.June 22, 2006). Per § 1332, an individual may request that the U.S. Attorney present evidence of alleged offenses to the grand jury; but that does not directly benefit plaintiff, so it does not create Article III standing to enforce particular action by the U.S. Attorney. Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069-70 (D.C.Cir.1997).
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/12/2014 at 2:55 PM CST and filed on 2/12/2014
Case Name: Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Case Number: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Filer: Orly Taitz
Document Number: 104
Reply to Opposition and in Support of Relevance to New Material Facts submitted to the Court on 1/21/2013, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Virgil E. Byrd comment, # (2) Exhibit 2 – American Thinker Article, # (3) Exhibit 3 – 7/18/2013 Text Order)(ND)
Okay, Guthrie had just been informed by the Judge in his first case that it had been closed and Guthrie filed a new case in the same court.
Case 2: 1:13-cv-0234-SEB-DKL was filed, 02/11/2013, in the District Court of the Southern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker (SEB) - Docket
So Mr Zullo, any explanations?….
Earlier this afternoon, Arizona’s Politics received confirmation from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that it had two detectives working on a criminal investigation related to the 2 1/2-year long probe into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. A spokesperson for Sheriff Joe Arpaio now tells Arizona’s Politics that his information was INCORRECT, and that birth certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo “was incorrect”.
MCSO Lt. Brandon Jones states that he “was misinformed” when he had confirmed the information earlier. He now states that “The detectives are not working on anything regarding the birth certificate. Not even surrounding. Mr Zullo was incorrect, they are working on other sensitive cases not even related.”
More at…. http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/20 … ounty.html
PS: Note the Mr Zullo… Not ‘lieutenant’ or any other inflated descriptions. At least the spokesperson knows that posse members are not law enforcement officers under Arizona statute.
Oh poor Zullo. He tries so hard.
Read more here
At the Post and Email, Sharon makes the following observations:
In September 2011, a member of The Fogbow, “nbc,” reportedly procured documents from Huff’s trial for “Jack,” aka “Jack Ryan,” whose real name is believed to be Bob Haggard. “NBC” follows the statements of Walter Fitzpatrick, Zullo and The Post & Email closely, then attempts to discredit them via disinformation.
Perhaps Sharon is not familiar with the fact that trial documents are available for download? Jack Ryan has been doing a great job at collecting the relevant documents for the many court cases involving birthers, allowing everyone to understand what is happening at these trials. He provides a great service to anyone interested in educating himself as to the details and arguments raised in the many cases that have been brought across our Nation. As to ‘disinformation’, I have yet to hear why the information I provide was flawed in any manner or form. I am always open to revise my position based on evidence.
A great legal document by a Judge in Canada who took the time to research and document the follies of the Sovereign movement.
It’s already being used by other courts.
The document outlines how ‘oath of office’ and bonds are seen as relevant ways of attacking the legitimacy of the court. That an a failure to understand who is the accuser in a criminal proceeding. Sounds familiar
Some have claimed that the Court’s reliance on 28 USC 1915 is inappropriate when it does not involve a prisoner. However, the facts are that the courts have long since addressed this.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The statute requires that a person seeking in forma pauperis status submit an affidavit including a statement of his or her assets. While the statute refers to “all assets such prisoner possesses,” courts have “reviewed the legislative history . . ., applied the basic axioms of statutory interpretation, and used a little common sense” to find that Congress’s use of the word “prisoner” in this provision was a typographical error.
Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274
, 275 (6th Cir. 1997), quoted in Jones v. N. Atl. Treaty Org.
, 1998 WL 136511, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Following Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Floyd, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applies the affidavit requirement to nonprisoner litigants. Jones , 1998 WL 136511, at *1.
In 2010, Walt wrote the following:
Therein was created the necessity and authority to conduct PETTWAY’s Citizen arrest. Intent to carry out a series of Citizens’ arrest was made in writing to local law enforcement in early March 2010 (click here).
Darren Huff was traveling to Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 in support of PETTWAY’s Citizens’ arrest. Darren recognized PETTWAY’s obstruction had to be overcome in order to advance the Treason complaint naming SOETORO-OBAMA.
In support of Pettway’s citizens’ arrest… Walt is providing the necessary support for the government’s argument that Darren had the intention of getting involved in what likely would have been a criminal act.
Discussing if Darren did more than the minimal planning, when he crossed the State line with with his weapons, the US Attorney General argues:
Well, I think that, when you look at all evidence in the record there was testimony that he had been planning this, this take-over of Madisonville Courthouse for weeks. That he had gone up to Madisonville, he consulted with Fitzpatrick, he had sent text messages back saying ‘no we are not committing citizen’s arrests today’, he is coordinating with a bunch of other individuals. I believe that given all the evidence in the record..
No statements that Fitzpatrick was the leader of a group of militia, planning an armed assault. Perhaps Walt would like to review the evidence?
Walt is at best a fleeting mention. Did I miss something?
Always interesting to hear from Walt and his interactions with the police. Recently, he chatted with the police for three hours, talking about his flawed theories about the foreperson of the Grand Jury and how he feels threatened by having been implicated as a sovereign citizen.
I predict that nothing much will happen as nothing he appears to have provided is actionable, and Walt understands as he promises that the ‘gloves have come off’.
Is our friend ready for more foolish actions?
Walt:I told him, “This, for me, is a last resort. I don’t know who else to go to. I told him about my interactions with the TBI, the sheriff’s department and FBI…the guy was amazed. He knows that I have my ducks in a row and why I’m concerned about the Sovereign Citizen program. I told him how I tried to get my name off of it again and again.
Ducks in a row
Walter Fitzpatrick believes that the United State’s Attorney somehow threatened his life when he mentioned Walt’s name in passing during a hearing in the case of US v Darren Huff. Walt decides to call the McMinn County Sheriff’s office to make an appointment with the internal affairs officer(s). It is not clear why Walt wants to talk to these internal affairs officers… He is upset that the foreperson of the Grand Jury no longer wants to deal with Walt’s attempts to have his case reheard and Walt is blaming the Sheriff for not intervening… Just because Walt believes, against the evidence, that Cunningham is an illegal foreperson does not mean that the Sheriff has to take notice…
So Walt calls, and a hilarious exchange follows in which Walt does all the talking and achieves nothing.
Walt: The time is zero eight nineteen hours eastern standard time. It’s friday morning, 31st of January 2014. It’s a friday. I am calling the McMinn County Sheriff office at xxxxx to set up an appointment next week with their internal affairs officer or officers.