Welcome to the ninth installment of the Frog Farm. This installment contains
the following topics:

1) The Missing 13th Amendment: Titles of Nobility and Honor (part 1 of 2)
2) George Gordon's Original Lesson 9: Service of Process
3) How to Record a Land Patent in California
4) Recorded BBS chat: A lesson in habeas corpus proceedings

**

The Missing 13th Amendment: "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor

Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786, Dallas, Texas
75354, annual subscription $25.00.

      In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and
former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for
evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the
Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.  By chance, they discovered
the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United
States (printed in 1825).  Both men were stunned to see this document
included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of
the Constitution.  Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language
and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this
"missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in
government.

      So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surroun-
ding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history --
the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of
the United States.  Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered ad-
ditional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment
printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different
states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

      In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this
missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state
of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American
Constitution.  If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have
been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in
government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution
during the tumult of the Civil War.

      Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the
Law today.  The implications are enormous.

      The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times
confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American
Revolution were different from our own.  However, there are essen-
tially two issues:  What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the
Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we
should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent
current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

      The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

      "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim,
receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without
the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of
the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}

      At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also
called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. 
The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and
"prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution
act of spite directed against the British monarchy.  But in our
modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments
seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

      Not so.

      Consider some evidence of its historical significance:  First,
"titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the
Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already
prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility"
amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to
Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.   Clearly, the founding fathers saw
such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that
anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship.  Since the
government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four
decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles
of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our
founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

      To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we
must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the
American Revolution.

      We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless,
and politically unremarkable.  But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as
dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western
nations.  Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned
other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided
an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow
their European monarchies.

      Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in
1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. 
The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations,
that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. 
The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising
(1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution.  Though we
stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies
regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle
source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the
world.  The monarchies must have realized that if the principle
source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world
might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

      Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or
subvert the American system of government.  Knowing they couldn't
destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of
political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in
bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". 
Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money
is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's
counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.

DON'T BANK ON IT
(Modern Banking System)

      The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a
former president of the Bank of England:

      "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. 
The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
that was ever invented.  Banking was conceived in inequity and born
in sin...  Bankers own the earth.  Take it away from them but leave
them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will
create enough money to buy it back again...  Take this great power
away form them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for
then this would be a better and happier world to live in...  But, if
you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of
your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
control credit."  The last great abuse of our banking system caused
the depression of the 1930's.  Today's abuses may cause another. 
Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships
between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at
the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford,
politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the
CIA).  These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking
by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money
to corrupt the political process and rob the public.  (Think you're
not being robbed?  Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses
of the S&L's, taxpayer?  You are.)

      The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic
bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon.  This abuse is a
human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to
America despite early colonial prohibitions.

      When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in
1790, there were only three state banks in existence.  At one time,
banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early
settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European
goldsmith banks.

      Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. 
In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes
(paper money) which were redeemable in gold.  The goldsmith bankers
quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked
by gold).  Why?  Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by
allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not
own, gold that did not even exist.

      Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper
money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the
bank".  If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the
paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the
paper were ruined.  Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime
hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their
fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society.  (The
practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank
insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and
our federal government's unbridled growth.)

PAPER MONEY

      If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the
American Revolution refreshed their memories.  To finance the war,
Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an
amount not to exceed $200,000,000.  The States issued another
$200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money
fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to
1000 paper bills for one coin.

      It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against
a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the
wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others.  But only in
a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims
of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.

      "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of
our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the
justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of
thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry,
and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality
of our people."

CONSPIRACIES

      A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that
almost succeeded in destroying the United States:

      According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in
the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolu-
tion.  The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered
that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published
it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the
Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal
judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth
about the government.

      Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators
agree to pay reparations to the loser?  And why would they agree to
pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended?  It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later
fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been
bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. 
That's subversion.

      The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians
from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won-
out in its establishment.  The initial capitalization was $10,000,000
-- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers.  Since the bank
was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capi-
tal), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the
bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000
that didn't exist.

      However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by
1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell
its shares.  (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United
States Bank.)

      The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence
representative government by economic manipulation and outright
bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that european
banking interests owned 80% of the bank.  Congress therefore refused
to renew the bank's charter.  This led to the withdrawal of
$7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in turn, precipi-
tated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

      That's destruction.

      There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts
to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public.  For example, David
Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress
Law Library.  According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in
the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitu-
tional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. 
That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Vir-
ginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.'  There is no public
record that this book exists."

      That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette
(5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare
books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts."  There may be
secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment.

TITLES OF NOBILITY

      In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States,
bankers committed many crimes.  Foremost among these crimes were
fraud, conversion, and plain old theft.  To escape prosecution for
their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal
does.  They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and
judges money could buy.  These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later
into the newly formed United States of America.

      Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated
wealth, and ultimately, respectability.  Like any modern member of
organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as
"legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did
their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves
by granting them "titles of nobility".

      Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as
"Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". 
As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more
civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable)
than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and
lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility.  The most common title was
"Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

      In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held
no "title of nobility" or "honor".  There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted
to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations.  The
only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar
Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in
London, and closely associated with the international banking system. 
Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title
of nobility".

      "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th
Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States.  Why?  Because
the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect.  Bankers and lawyers
with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy,
members of an organization whose principle purposes were political,
not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people
today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

      Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the
International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted
titles of nobility) from operating in America.  But the Constitution
neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and
agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the
government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). 
Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty
(loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810.  The
meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons
having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and
bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to
subvert the government.

HONOR

      The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility"
Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may
be more significant.

      According to David Dodge,  Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary,
the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment
was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or
privilege over another".  A contemporary example of an "honor"
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: 
Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and
powers; non-lawyers cannot.

      By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any
advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal
opportunity to achieve or exercise political power.  Therefore, the
second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political
equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even
government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege
or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

      If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key
concept in the 13th Amendment.  Why?  Because, while "titles of
nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the
concept of "honor" remains relevant.

      For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits
which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate
privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote
or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that
our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. 
As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation
our government passes:  "special interests" are simply euphemisms for
"special privileges" (honors).

WHAT IF?
(Implications if Restored)

      If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests"
and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional.  The prohibition
against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to
operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation.  Without
their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S.
agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal
liability.  If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire govern-
ment would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of
decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation.  If
this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our govern-
ment's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be
all but eliminated.

      Imagine.

      Imagine!

      A government without special privileges or immunities.  How
could we describe it?  It would be ... almost like ... a government
. of the people ... by the people ... for the people!

      Imagine:  a government ... whose members were truly accountable
to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its
own people!

      It's unheard of ... it's never been done before.  Not ever in
the entire history of the world.

      Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the
National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Con-
gress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states
when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that
ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only
twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified.  The
Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the
Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobil-
ity" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

      Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge
and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would
still be an extraordinary story.

      Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having
a political paradise, right here on Earth?  Do you realize what an
extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us?  And how close
we came?

      One vote.  One state's vote.

      The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to
ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812.  But they argue that
ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn
in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support.

      One vote.

      David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he
claims he has the evidence to prove it.

PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND

      In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of pos-
sible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately
become our Bill of Rights.  The House proposed seventeen; the Senate
reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tris-
train Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and
provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of Nobility"
(RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate).  Although it wasn't passed, this
was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed.

      Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed
another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceed-
ings of the Senate, p. 529-530).  On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted
to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved
in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the
States for ratification:

      "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim,
receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without
the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of
the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
trust or profit under them, or either of them."

      The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify
a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. 
When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810,
there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify
for the Amendment to be adopted.  According to the National Archives,
the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their
dates of ratification:

      Maryland,         Dec. 25, 1810
      Kentucky,         Jan. 31, 1811 
      Ohio,             Jan. 31, 1811 
      Delaware,         Feb.  2, 1811 
      Pennsylvania,     Feb.  6, 1811 
      New Jersey,       Feb. 13, 1811 
      Vermont,          Oct. 24, 1811 
      Tennessee,        Nov. 21, 1811 
      Georgia,          Dec. 13, 1811 
      North Carolina,   Dec. 23, 1811 
      Massachusetts,    Feb. 27, 1812 
      New Hampshire,    Dec. 10, 1812

      Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke
out with England.  By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had
burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records
of the first 38 years of government.  Whether there was a connection
between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of
1812 is not known.  However, the momentum to ratify the proposed
Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

      Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the
status of this Amendment.  In a letter dated February 6, 1818,
President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been rati-
fied by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Is-
land), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's
position.  (House Document No. 76)

      (This, and other letters written by the President and the
      Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note
      only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. 
      However, these letters would later become crucial because,
      in the absence of additional information they would be
      interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

      On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the
rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina.  [House Doc. No. 129]. 
There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th
Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is
neither confirmed nor denied.  Likewise, a search through the execu-
tive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any
correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a
journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the
House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a
time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.)
Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

      However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act
No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for
micro-film):  "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there
shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in
which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the
Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." 
This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by
law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the
Virginia Civil Code.  The Virginia Legislature had already agreed
that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that
the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted.  Therefore, the
13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of
re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code:  March 12, 1819.

      The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that
were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment.  They also
knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so
they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published
in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple
their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to
President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. 
(The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be
extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would
forfeit his bond.)

      In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification:  by
publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the
Constitution.

      There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified
the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. 
Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or
at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally
ratified.  However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence
of ratification.

      Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secre-
tary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the
ratification process.  The Constitution only requires that three-
fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the
Constitution.  If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment
is passed.  Period.  The Constitution is otherwise silent on what
procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the
ratification of amendments.

      Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amend-
ment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the
nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special
edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

      Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the
States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment
in 1822.  Ohio first published in 1824.  Main ordered 10,000 copies
of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in
the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. 
Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. 
Northwestern Territories published in 1833.  Ohio published in 1831
and 1833.  Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory
in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska
Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

      So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or
territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publica-
tions over forty-one years.  And more editions including this 13th
Amendment are sure to be discovered.  Clearly, Dodge is onto someth-
ing.

      You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even
all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never
ratified.  Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which
ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far) con-
sisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments from
their ... ahh, articles.  You might even be able to convince the
public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants
who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to "look
the other way."  Maybe.  But before you do, there's an awful lot of
evidence to be explained.

[end part 1 of 2]

**

[Are there any subscribers out there who missed Lesson 7 (Jurisdiction) when
it was posted to alt.society.sovereign? Please keep in mind that I do NOT have
all 40 (or somewhere around that figure) of the original lessons transcribed
to textfile format. Lesson 7 was a videotaped copy which I "won" in an essay
contest on the original Frog Farm; even though I didn't write the article
which I posted (_Jury Power_ by Lynn and Judy Osborne, from High Times), FF
said I was the only participant, so I deserved a prize! The videotape is a
"copy of a copy of a copy of a copy", and shows it by playing like eighty
miles of bad road, as Foghorn Leghorn would say. More recently, I ran into
someone living in my geographical area who has a complete set of audiotapes of
the original lessons, which he graciously allowed me to borrow, and I've since
then been dipping into them here and there, and only typing in the "best of
the best".

So far, I have transcribed lessons 7 and 9 completely, and have partial
transcriptions of 13 and 22 (13 is unfinished; 22 ends prematurely on the
tape). A list subscriber suggested the possibility of using an audio-capable
computer to sample the lessons (at something reasonable like 8 bits; CD
quality is certainly not needed) and applying audio compression, then making
these files available via FTP, etc. While I feel comfortable simply releasing
an ASCII copy of the isolated lesson here and there, I feel that any large-
scale duplication effort such as this would have to be done with George's
explicit permission. At present, it's a moot issue, since I don't have access
to an audio-capable computer, but rest assured that if this changes, I will
definitely write to George and ask for a limited distribution license, to
apply only to his original series of lessons (done sometime in the early 80's;
there are a few references to date in the lessons, as well as the occasional
bit of data that allows one to guess George's age, roughly).

in the meantime, sit back, relax and enjoy. George is a master salesman, and
definitely Frog Farmer's strongest influence. There aren't too many like him
in this world, and we are all the richer for them.]


               George Gordon: Sunday School (Selected Lessons)
                 Originally taped sometime around 1982-3 A.D.
                    Transcribed from videotape 1992-3 A.D.


Lesson 9: Service of Process

when you begin this type of procedure in your town, in your county, you're
going to run into some real static. these lower court judges are going to see
you as a wild-eyed fanatic, as a kook. so always be respectful, and don't come
unglued, and don't go in there with a nasty or surly attitude, because it's
really counter-productive in the long run, and i can tell you that from
experience that there's no real benefit in creating enemies. as a matter of
fact, it's much easier to just go in and let the judge jump up and down and
paw the ground and bite the bushes and froth at the mouth and do whatever it
is that judges do when someone demands rights instead of accepting their
punishment. but over time, as they become exposed to the briefs and motions,
and the ideas, pretty soon you're not a kook, you're a serious, sincere
citizen demanding his day in court, demanding redress of greivances. and
that's when your respectability, your reputation, will pick up.

you'll lose a few jury trials, and i'll admit it's discouraging when the jury
comes back and says they find you guilty as charged on all counts. what makes
it discouraging is the feeling of being rejected by your supposed peers, but
remember, most of these folks have driver's licenses and such. they do err not
understanding the law. we just appeal and take it higher.

we have an interesting new move we're working on now. Pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 12-01 and 12-02, there's a technical move we can make in taking by
statute, this petition for our redress of greivances before the district
court. now we're going to experiment with that, starting right away. whereever
you are, and by the way, this judge recently asked us, why don't you do this?
he's saying, you guys keep coming in and costing us all this money every time,
you're always found guilty, and you always appeal, and you always get bogged
down in the appeals process, and the prosecutor won't answer your appeal, and
it just costs us a lot of money, and you keep getting harassed by the police
who keep giving you these tickets. so why don't you use Title 10, Chap 12,
and go to the district court?

when we went out to see the judges the other day, we asked them, would you be
willing to sign this letter to that effect, so when we file the motion, the
district court would perhaps take closed notice of the case? and they seemed
very amenable to that. i don't know where you are in your state, but remember
we've been working in this county for over a year and a half. I think that by
now our county, Ada County, has spent over $100,000 on a number of citizens,
probably 50 or so, who've taken cases into the traffic courts.

that's the important thing to remember. If you want to do it right, always
demand a jury trial, always go in and argue the case, always take a full day
and always cost the state at least a minimum amount, say, $1500.

way back in lesson 1, or lesson 2, i told you money rules. and i gave four
reasons why a competent pro se litigant couldn't be defeated in the courtroom,
and money is number one.

the judge told one of our friends the other day, why are you going to plead
not guilty to these parking tickets? This is going to cost the county $1500
and take an entire day, and you know you'll be found guilty!

the fellow just used one of our standard lines. "If you're so concerned with
the cost to the county, why don't you dismiss it?" "Well, I can't do that, I'm
the judge." "Well, then, why do you condemn me? Why don't you condemn the
prosecutor for bringing these charges against citizens, and squandering the
taxpayer's money? I'm not guilty of any crime, and you come to me and ask me
to plead not guilty to something i didn't do and i'm not guilty of, to save
the taxpayers money? I think the taxpayers should be informed as to how their
money is being wasted by their public servants, who are in reality only public
tyrants."

well, the judge didn't really have an answer for that one, so of course the
trial will go on, and the pro se will lose to the jury because the jury is
composed of licensed drivers who all put money in those parking meters, and
their attitude is, well, i'm a slave and you should be too! remember the toby
formula -- the slaves pretty much want to stay slaves; the freemen pretty much
want to be free; but the freemen end up being judged by juries full of slaves.

notice that we've talked about these traffic citations, and i'll just comment
here. this thing is not a complaint, and here in idaho we always file a motion
demanding that these tickets be subjugated to a formal complaint with an
affidavit in support. that costs them more money, and it protects your rights.
you're denying the court jurisdiction. remember, if you have a right, EXERCISE
IT. never, under any circumstances, cut costs in the case. it's not to your
benefit.

remember, in the early days, they used to make fun of us and ridicule us, and
arrest us and throw us in jail and beat us unconscious. now they don't do that
anymore, now they listen to us a bit more intently. they're willing to listen.
you too, are going to be subjected to some hellacious intimidation. but the
more you try to intimidate freemen here in idaho, well, i've said for years
that if they just left us alone, we probably wouldn't know what to do, we'd
dry up and blow away in a week. i doubt seriously that we could even function
if our government didn't oppose us. but it seems these fools have got it in
their minds that what they've got to do is beat us down. that's their type of
mentality, force, beat, browbeat. people are being oppressed enough as it is,
and now you throw a guy in jail over the weekend, he really comes out mad. the
word on the street as of this last week, this is march 19, 1983, is that the
lower court judges have decided that we're teaching so many new people how to
do what we're doing, that they're afraid we're going to bog the whole system
down. you see? their money-grubbing system is what we're attempting to put an
end to, this thing of stealing people's automobiles and fining people for
pretended crimes and railroading them through and stealing their money under
color of law. that's what we're trying to stop.

had a judge ask me the other day, we were talking in chambers, "what would
happen? how would we function if all these people took the license plates off
their cars, and turned in their licenses? we'd have nothing but anarchy and
chaos!" i said, poppycock. there isn't but one person in a thousand that even
wants to be free, let alone knows HOW to be free. all you have to do is let
the slaves be slaves, and nobody will know, and nobody will care, and everyone
will be happy.

it's been all through history, i guess they've never learned, that when you
oppress people, they'll sit still for a while, but when they start to squeal,
the government better back off and let them get their breath before they start
up again. if they do, they can keep it up forever. but if they put the screws
to them without stop, they'll have a real rebellion and traumatic changes on
your hands. all of a sudden you get black people eating at tables and such,
and i'll bet that was real traumatic to those people in the south while it was
going on.

i'm going to spend the rest of our time running through this file folder, and
i want you to become real familiar with this material, because as we go on
now, we're talking about heavier and heavier material. the first six lessons
were the background, told you who you are and what you are, told you you're a
slave and told you how you got that way. and the next six are designed to
introduce you to the courtroom and its procedures, and then we'll get into
real detailed courtroom strategy. how to ask the jury questions that will
create dismissal for cause, and such.

the difference between a citation and a complaint is that a COMPLAINT is a
FORMAL DOCUMENT that comes from the public prosecutor, the Attorney General,
or the prosecuting attorney. You should always demand a complaint in place of
a citation. once you have a complaint, it can be served -- that is,
administered -- either by warrant or by summons. if you have a lawful summons
from the court, just make your appearance and do it specially and not
generally. take a look at the arraignment and plea and see what it says. we've
had people walk into the court who can't speak too well, and tell the judge,
well, your honor, i don't talk too good, and here's my arraignment and plea
and everything i need to say is right here in writing.

now when you have a warrant, at least here in Idaho - remember to check your
State's Constitution - that warrant has to signed by a judge and returned
after the arrest. and that warrant is a part of due process. always demand the
warrant that went with the complaint, and/or the affidavit in support of the
complaint.

we talked about subpoenas, both civil and criminal. When you want to bring
witnesses into the court, you'll need subpoena power to do that. these mickey
mouse parking tickets, there's no witness to the event. maybe that's why
they're not prosecuting them anymore here in Ada County. when you talk about a
criminal action, you have to have a witness, in this case, someone who can
say, yeah, i saw him park there and get out and walk away. lacking that, you
don't have any cause of action at bar, and you should challenge it on that
basis. but remember, it doesn't matter if it's a mickey mouse charge or a
felony charge. i treat parking tickets just as i would crimes of any nature or
grade. i fight and argue each and every one with the same intensity, and if
you want to win, you'd better do the same, because there's another one of our
golden rules: if it's important enough for your government to prosecute, it's
important enough for you to defend.

okay, we're talking about due process of law under both the 5th amendment, and
you cannot have due process of law unless you have all the paperwork in order.
and if they don't do the paperwork, you should complain, you should object,
you should file motions for dismissal for reversible error and extreme
prejudice ANY TIME that there is a major constitutional issue that affects
rights.

this isn't in any particular order, but i want to show you what you're looking
at in this case. this is the entire case from the time of the arrest up until
the time it was dismissed. i think the arrest took place around April 9th,
1982, and the dismissal was something on the order of August 30th, something
like that, at a motion hearing. First thing i want you to look at is this
thing called the Transcript of a Preliminary Hearing, it's 95 pages. covered
about two hours of a preliminary hearing where i was doing everything in my
power to get charges reduced from felonies to misdemeanors and then get the
misdemeanors dismissed, and i think i did get the misdemeanor dismissed, but
the judge bound me over to the district court anyway.

now originally, they filed the complaint and said i did these things and
charged me with a felony, and later they brought the information in. now
notice that when i went to the preliminary hearing, which is on page 1 about
the middle of the page, i brought up some preliminary matters. makes sense,
doesn't it? i was telling the court what my rights were and saying, we need to
address these matters prior to moving forward. as you read through these 95
pages -- and remember, this transcript cost the government about two dollars a
page -- i ought to bring up that somehow, a jail suit was torn into eleven
pieces and left beneath my bunk. don't be surprised if your government agents
try to frame you in jail - always be alert. it's relatively easy to win,
because after all, they're not going to recognize your rights. i don't believe
there was ever a time that i was in jeopardy and i don't think the issue was
ever tearing up a jail suit, i think the issue was the grand jury, and
counsel, and whether we're gonna have a fair trial or if i'm gonna be
prosecuted by one of the king's agents.

so follow through the transciprt. i don't claim to be a professional or an
expert, i'm just a citizen like you. i'm just saying that we have developed a
program and methodology that when we go into court and demand our rights, we
get good results, and win every time. i want you to follow through with that,
improve on my mistakes, but try to avoid the temptation to experiment.

had a lady in here not long ago being sued for something, and we brought up
the subject of dirty hands, because in equity, remember, one of the maxims is
that you have to come with clean hands, as bouvier's says. And this lady, for
some reason, just couldn't use the words "dirty hands". we showed her where
bouvier's said it, and told her it was a common term, like "sliding down the
slippery slope", and for some reason, she couldn't handle it. i'm not telling
you what to say or how to say it, i'm just saying that it would be in your own
best interest to follow proven, winning techniques first. I've always said
this in business; I don't care if you improve upon what i do, but first of
all, i want my subordinates to do what i did, because i may have - you know,
there's four ways to do something, the first best way, the second best way,
the third best way, and the fourth best way. all four ways get the task done,
but the first is the fastest and easiest. let's assume that what i'm doing
here in this transcript is the slowest and hardest method: it got the job
done, and i won the case. once you get to the point where you can get the job
done, then you can try to get it done faster and easier. but let me tell you,
this paperwork is so crucial and important, it's absolutely imperative.
Failure to do the paperwork spells defeat, and that defeat will come in the
appellate process.

the paperwork you see here in this case was never for the benefit of the
magistrate - in fact, not very much of this was really designed for the
district court anyway, because we thought we'd go to trial, and the jury would
come back guilty. All of this paperwork is designed to show that there are
rights violations - i demand counsel, i demand a public prosecutor, i'm the
belligerent claimant in person.

now i don't know why a judge would get so uptight and upset and come down so
hard on your average joe doakes who works in the sawmill, or does whatever it
is he does in his life, who comes in and demands his rights, but i suspect
it's because it's such a threat to their power base, which hasn't occurred in
the last fifty years. i mean, here in idaho, we actually have one judge who
rotates around and looks at all the cases that come through the prosecuting
attorney's office, and HE decides which ones will be prosecuted and which ones
won't, and i say POPPYCOCK to that, i say that every case which is of an
infamous character has to be brought before a grand jury, and that jury of the
county or community will decide whether or not to prosecute. you know, if we
were to bring this case here, this alleged theft of two parking tickets out of
the district court, where i'm facing forty years in prison and a $20,000
fine.. i don't know if they lost them or maybe it's a frameup or they're just
mad at me, or maybe they're trying to get a felony conviction on me so i can
never run for public office or something.

and by the way, to set your minds at ease, all of you out there, i'm not
running for any kind of public office. i know i'm not a politician and don't
have the mentality for it. i used to think i was a prophet. i remember about
1968 i made some prophecies, and let's see, the fifth prophecy was that the
temple would be built in jerusalem in 1968, and i thought that the tribulation
would begin about 1972, and i thought the second coming of christ would come
about 1975. and then i got to reading i think it was deuteronomy 8, and it
said something about a prophet, and if he makes prophecies that come not to
pass, then you'll know. so i just want you to know that god didn't send me,
because none of those prophecies came to pass, and i figured right out i
wasn't a prophet. so i don't know what i am, i just know what i am not, and
another thing that i know that i am not is a politician. at this moment in
time, i believe that i have the character and the moral integrity to tell you
that i won't run for public office, because i don't think that those who serve
in public office have the character i have. and i'm not bragging or saying
anything great about myself, but i'm just telling you in plain language  that
my character, whatever it is, is three or four notches above any politician
i've ever met.

so if any you are prosecutors out there and are concerned about george gordon
running for office and trying to straighten the world out, you can forget
about it.

okay, over here we have this thing called direct examination, and later on a
reference to cross examination, and you'll notice that during cross
examination, miss carnahan would object. NOTICE THESE OBJECTIONS, and the
language that the judge and prosecutor here, and try to pick up on the phrases
and ideas used here. your acceptability and professional manner in the court
will be recognized by the judge, the prosecution and your adversary, and
they'll know it by the words that proceed out of your mouth. i think there's
an old proverb that runs something like, out of the abundance of the heart,
the mouth speaks. so, out of the abundance of your mind, you speak your
defense.

so here's the preliminary hearing where i had the chance to throw this case
out, and i worked real hard trying to get that done, but the judge bound me
over. take a look at this, and see if you can spot the reason why this
happened. was it prejudice? no, i don't think so. was it because of pressure
of the judicial system, maybe? oh, probably more that, i don't think they had
a case, really.

Now i don't know if i mentioned this before, but up here in the corner,
there's a number to help you keep track. when you gave this particular
document to the judge, you gave him a copy with the number there. and your has
the number, of course. but the PROSECUTOR'S copy, that you gave him, it should
NOT have any numbering on it, and this is just common sense. it's not in your
best interests to give your adversary any more information than is absolutely
necessary.

the jurisdiction brief. remember, that's a crucial issue, and one of the
things it embodies is the ability of the court to effect a remedy. and of
course, you're challenging jurisdiction. i was in court the other day, the
jury came in and found me guilty and we went to the sentencing hearing, and i
laid the money issue out. now in the state of idaho, our state statutes, idaho
code, defines dollar, says the money of account is measured in dollars. and
your federal constitution, article 1 section 10, of course, defines money. and
the coinage act of 1792 defines the dollar as being 412.5 grains of silver.
when i brought that up to the judge, and this is very interesting, he said, mr
gordon, because of the money issue, i'm going to suspend the fine. we've been
here a year and a half preaching the money issue, had another judge the other
day tell me, you just may have something there. so maybe things aren't as bad
as we believed.

here's the felony of destruction of jail charges defense brief, the list of
every motion, all 34 of them. as you go through these, you'll see the order
they're filed in. we'll get into motions later on, teach you how to read and
write the statutes and then how to read and write motions, plead the
complaint, challenge the statute and look for the key words that cause
reversible error. here's number 33, status to contract. in lesson 1, we went
into that, and i want to pass on a litle trick here to serve at arraignment.

this particular paper can be served at arraignment, but if it isn't ready,
don't worry. you can make motions all you want, or rather, notices and
demands. that's another important thing, and we'll repeat it real loud and
clear: YOU NEVER 'MAKE MOTIONS'; YOU DO NOT 'MOVE' THE COURT. ONLY AN INJURED
PARTY CAN MOVE THE COURT. you make NOTICES and DEMANDS, for example: "I demand
that the court take judicial notice of this", "I demand counsel of my choice",
"I demand a public prosecutor", etc.

the jurisdiction brief uses status, and explains how the statutes attempt to
bind people to specific performance with quasi-voluntary agreements. and
here's one that demands a subpoena duces tecum. what's black's definition of
that one? "a process by which the court, at the instances of the suitor,
commands a witness who has in his possession or control some document or paper
that is pertinent to the issues of a pending controversy, to produce it at the
trial. State ex re. Everglades Cypress Co. v. Smith, 104 Fla. 91,139 So. 794;
Ex parte Hart, 240 Ala. 642,200 So. 783,785." you're telling them to bring
forward the physical property, in this case, the jail clothes that i'm alleged
to have destroyed and torn up, so we can show them to the jury, put it in
their hands and measure the damage.

here's your opening statement in the jurisdiction argument: "comes now the
defendant in the instant case claiming all of his rights under the common law
and waiving none of his rights at any time, appearing by motion and not
granting jurisdiction to this court, as the issue of jurisdiction is in
question, to wit:"

almost every appearance i've made has been with that specific reservation of
all of my rights. if i've ever forgotten it, it was a mistake and an accident.
you're appearing and telling the court:

"-- to order the government to bring forward, at the probable cause hearing,
any and all rags alleged in the complaint to have been torn or damaged by the
defendant on or about April 9, 1982. These rags are necessary and imperative
to the defense in the instant case dated April 21, 1982."

so here in idaho, check your state for the details, you have to be brought
before this preliminary hearing within 21 days if you have been released from
jail, and within 14 days if you're still in jail. now on the 15th day, you've
got another motion, moving for dismissal for failure to bring the defendant
forth timely under rule 5-21 or whatever it happens to be. this last felony,
the judge didn't bring me forward for 27 days. if i don't win in the district
court, or if this mickey mouse case isn't dismissed, and i'll call it that, a
mickey mouse case, any judge can see that it should be dismissed.

focus on the words NECESSARY AND IMPERATIVE. everything i demand is necessary
and imperative, or else i wouldn't be demanding it! the judge will say, oh,
you could get by without one of these, couldn't you? absolutely not, your
honor! i don't see how we can continue forward without the actual physical
evidence here in the hands of the officer in question and the ability to ask
him questions and look at the rags! and the judge may not let you have 'em,
but when the appeals court looks at it, it'll be a different story.

we'll wrap this particular lesson up on this note. here you have a case, and
it may be the only time you've ever seen a case -- i've got a lot, if you want
to buy some more, i've got at least ten, and we'll be happy to put 'em
together and quote a price. but i think this one here will be plenty, and you
can copy this -- remember we're not concerned about copyright laws, this paper
is mine and i own it and i'm giving you permission to copy it, but remember
that it would be advantageous to the most number of people if you could keep
it in its entirety, don't leave out chunks of it, try to pass the whole thing
along, all 34 items. there's service of process.

[end of lesson]


**


[This one is very likely outdated, but it's the most recent item I have
regarding "sole and despotic dominion" (one of Bouvier's many definitions of
"property", and a damn good one). I offer it here because it still seems like
a good starting point for people to research from.]


            HOW TO RECORD A LAND PATENT IN CALIFORNIA

     This article will explain the steps necessary to record a Land Patent in
California.  When I first attempted this, I met with negative results, so I
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court to compel the County
Clerk/Recorder to file and record my Land Patent.  Needless to say, I was
ruled against, the court holding that my Declaration of Land Patent was a
self- serving instrument.  Further study led me to the method I have used
twice in the County of Amador, without so much as a whimper of objection.

     1.  Get the legal description of your property--Township number, Range
number, and Section number.  These numbers may be on your deed, but this is
not likely.  You may have to go to the County Tax Assessors office to get this
information.

     2.  Next, send a copy of this information to 

          Bureau of Land Management
          Federal Office Building, Room E-2841
          2800 Cottage Way
          Sacramento, California 95825. 
            (Phone 916-484-4724)  

  In your letter to the Bureau of Land Management, ask for certified copies of
all Land Patents or Grants that were issued regarding the property described.
The cost for your certified copies is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.00
each, so you can send an amount in excess of this to be positive. They will
refund the difference, if any.  Also, make payment only with a U.S. Postal
Money Order.

     3.  When you receive your certified copies, you will then grant the
property from yourself to yourself, using the certified copies as exhibits to
your Grant Deed.  Most any stationery store has blank "Grant Deeds."  Use the
one that you got when you bought your property as a reference.  Fill out the
Grant Deed as usual, except, that in the area for the description of the
property, you will insert the following statement:

          For Description, see EXHIBIT "A", consisting of one 
     page, and EXHIBIT "B" consisting of ___ page(s), attached 
     hereto and made a part hereof.

   If your land patent consists of more than one page, insert the total number
of pages for Exhibit "B".

     4.  Exhibit "A" is the revised description of your property. Type up the
description of your property as it appears on the deed you got when you bought
the property.  Immediately below this description, insert the following:

          ALSO TOGETHER WITH assignment of any and all Rights, 
     Title, Interests, Privileges, and Immunities, as 
     Assign(ee)/(s), of the Original Patentee(s) or Grantee(s) to 
     that portion or those portions of United States Land Patent 
     No. ___________, a Certified Copy of which is attached 
     hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated hereat by reference, 
     dated ____________ ___, _______, originally recorded by 
     ________________ on _______________ ___, ______, in Book 
     ____, at page _______, of ____________ County Patents, as 
     the same concern the herein described real property.

        Note:  The above is a general form and you should change the wording
to show the type of interest you have in the property and the "Book" the
patent was originally recorded in.  You can find the original book and page by
looking up the name(s) of the original Patent Holder(s) for your property in
the County Recorder's office.  Also, if more than one patent applies to your
property, list each as part of the above paragraph.

     5.  Take your completed unsigned Grant Deed, with attached exhibits to a
Notary Public for execution.

     6.  You are now ready to have your Land Patent recorded and brought
forward in your name.  One additional point that I might add is that,
according to the owner of the title company where I had my Grant Deed
notarized, a future purchaser will have a hard task, if not an impossible one,
getting title insurance on the property.  Isn't that too bad!!

     7.  Take your notarized Grant Deed and exhibits to the County Recorder's
ofice for recordation.  If they ask you what you are doing, you can just tell
them something on the order of "I'm just protecting my interests in my
property."

          Yours for a Constitutional republic!!!

                 Robert D. Ferlingere


**

[This is an on-line chat recorded and stored on the now-defunct Sovereign's
Paradise BBS in California. The student's identity is unknown; the "teacher"
is probably the sysop, Bill Thornton. I have edited and cleaned up the text
slightly.]


HABEAS CORPUS INQUIRY
PRACTICE SESSION #1

"John," say de judge, "y'all step fo'th!"

Will you please give me your name, sir?  (Says John to de judge)

I'm de jedge in this here co't, and I wanna know what the reason you have
brought these here innocent people for me to examine them. Answer me now!

(pause)

"Bang! de gavel say -- "Answer!" de jedge say

Sir, why are you acting this way?  Are you suspending the Writ?

Of course not.  Now why don't you answer these here simple questions?

(pause)

If you continue to ignore my questions I'm going to put you in the can.  What
is your NAME, bub!?

Would you accept "John"?

"John" what?

On Roger's paper it says "is it not the Accusor's responsibility to put the
name into Court?" (See page 4.  Position in open Court.)

Marshal, take this man into custody.  I don't know no "Roger" and no "Roger's
paper." "click" go de hand cuffs

Are you suspending the Writ, Sir.?  If so I now you.......

==================================================

OK, where do we go now?

Well, obviously, the Judge has not suspended the writ.  Just ask him.

Call for remedy?

Try it.

==================================================

Sir, I now ask for the remedy.

I see no remedy before me.  You have been very contemptous of this court sir.
We must have law and ORDER in the town.  People like you should learn that.
Understand?  Never mind. Marshall, take this man into the can till he learns
his lesson.

Sir, are you aware the  hearing is terminated.  I now call for the
alternative......

Do you want  an extension of the sentence?  Marshal, take him away.  (judge
leaves the bench)

help!

??????--gotchha visiting hours are from 1 to 2 every Friday. This is Monday...

I guess that we are not ready DT.  Just stop talking to our buddy about me
going to jail and that just upset her

But it's fun to play judge and put people in jail. let's review this. OK?

ok

What I did to you was put a twist in your pathway.  You were headed nicely in
the direction of Habeas Corpus.  What I did was engage in a personal attack on
you..  My excuse was that I asked you questions and you did not show any
inclination to answer.  In equity that would be contempt of the court.  As
soon as I launched my attack, you should have stopped talking and let me run
out of steam..  at some point I have to take a breath, or at least get some
reaction out of you.  You were then at a fork in your road.  You chose to
pursue the habeas corpus, which of course, is technically correct.  But you
let me get away with the initial arrest without any real challenge.  What you
should have said, as soon as you were arrested, was, "Why am I being
arrested?"

oh ok

It still would have been a question and not a statement.  But the judge
departed from the normal "civil" procedure, and into something really
different.  Every one has a legal and equitable right to know why he is in
custody.  Even the worst judges know that.  If you immediately ASK why you are
in custody, the judge now really is under pressure to answer that question.
The only answer he can give is that you are in contempt because you refused to
answer his questions.  At that point you can ask, when was I given the Miranda
warning that I had to answer the questions or be thrown in jail? By the way,
that is exactly what Natalie Telemaque did in Phoenix, Arizona.  Actually, I
cannot imagin that things would go that way in your civil case.  In Natalie's
case, she was before the judge on no-driver's license matter, and they really
were itching to find even the smallest excuse to put her in jail.  The marshal
put the handcuffs on her in the courtroom, but then he took them off again,
because she did immediately attack the immediate custody issue.  like I said,
in your case, you will never get close to that point.  But if you can handle
me, you can probably handle the judge. Dare you try again?

not tonight I'll get ready tomorrow nite...just a minute, I have a question
about procedure.  Could we amend the counterclaim in the Municipal court case
to identify one of the John Doe's and name him?  Making him a party to the
action in that court?  Would it stop him from holding the 1/13/89 hearing?

you could, but it would not stop him.  It's basically located in his
territory.  He can probably count on the support of his co- workers (judges,
clerks, marshals, etc.)  They all seem quite anxious to break their own laws.
You already have him as a "defendant" in your district court case
(federal) Yes.  John wants you to know that we have to make a special
appearance in Municipal Court on that day, right?

Right.

The special appearance is a way of appearing for the purposes of challenging
jurisdiction, but otherwise, in a legal sense, you have not appeared.  But,
you cannot be accused of failure to appear when you do it that way.  When you
appear, (assuming you have not convinced them to back off in the U.S. court)
you just object, and conduct your habeas corpus examination as before.  In
fact, when they call the hearing, you pop up and ask for the opposing party
exactly as you did in the U.S. court.  Make it a habeas corpus proceeding.
Also, you ask questions.  If they interfere, (let them interfere at least
three times to prove a pattern) then you declare the meeting terminated.
Remember--not matter what they do or say, you can straighten it out later with
the paperwork.  That is where you use the writ of error.  For example:  You
are trying to get a witness to testify.  But the judge is using his position
to keep you from do so.  Also the judge says that your motions and questions
are frivolous etc etc.  Realize that the judge took the floor to do his
talking before you were ready to give up the floor (parliamentary style).  He
violated the procedure. Therefore, writ of error.  It seems to be a little
tricky but not really that bad if we can hold things together.  The thing that
makes it work is the habeas corpus inquiry.  As the accused you have a right
to examine (i.e. "face") your accusers (6th amendment).  When the judge
interferes with your constitutional rights, he has extended himself beyond his
jurisdiction.  The writ of error is used to put him back in his place.
Basically, what we need to do is some more practice like we just did.  It
might be a good idea if I study it myself.  I could not have planned it better
(pat pat).  But it worked perfectly as an example of how things can wrong
(from your point of view).  The example is good because, even though it went
to the extreme, it was an accurate display of the "flow" of logic in such a
situation.  (actually, there is no logic).

Ok (pat, pat) but you turned my stomach upside down again!

good.  not because I'm sadistic, but because it will condition you and
sensitize you to the situation as it develops in the courtroom.  By getting
this practice, you will be able to nip it in the bud in the courtroom and not
let it get out of hand as you did here.


[end of recorded text]


**


-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
aS51cz4=
=WIMt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----