| Author |
 Topic  |
|
godslawissupreme
Regular Member
Canada
30 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 03:52:55
|
Dear Fellow Brother,
I have the Cracking the Code - Version One and Three in my possession.
I shall tell you this much, I have over 15 yrs of Legal Background and a Law Degree to Boot.
And the Government Knows what they are doing. And They do it very well also.
My own personal advise Is get the CTC3 from www.jhdandassociates.com
where I bought mine and get the CDs also.
Brother Vic explains that you need to be resposible for all the StrawMans Code Violations. And explains in Detail how to handle legal Presentments without Dishonor.
Question did Jesus do any Dishonors ?? Think about it ??
I do not think its a wise Idea to jump into anything without a Good Solid Foundation on a Biblical status also.
As In our personal findings that God Created CommonLaw for a Reason. And all Law is Based from that Foundation. The Roman Government doesnt want you to know, that their Laws are based Soley from Common Law.
Suggestion Read Between the LINES and PRAY upon it Brother.
Look what happened to Jesus ??
Are you ready to be sacrificed ?? Do to yer Lack of Knowledge ??
Read Hosea 4:6 for the Answer and also Luke 11:52 for the answers to why the Lawyers know the truth and you dont !!!
Read between the lines okay. And ALLOW the words to motivate you and guide you also.
As In Ephesians 6 God Gives Guidance to all who seek him out in His Eternal Love . Many Blessings in yer Endeavours.
Just a Final thought, Once you take the REDPILL you cannot go back !!!! THE MATRIX !! Be Blessed all Praise God for He is the Only True Law Maker.
Gods Law Is Supreme :) |
 |
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 17:22:09
|
Hi Alisa,
Well, since they view it as you perpetrating a fraud upon the public, they are not required to give you notice of error. Remember, "Ignorance of the Law is no Excuse". It is always your responsibility, when putting something into the public record, to insure that what you are doing is true and correct. Not knowing that what you are doing is wrong, won't remove the liability of your actions.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 16:09:46
|
Lewis,
I have been trying to send you emails and everytime, they keep bouncing back to me. It seems like there is some kind of problem with your mailserver or something...
I took your advice and bought the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" and I'm studying it everyday.
I had one question for you: Do all of the rules in there apply to "Small Claims" courts where you suggest I sue the IRS. As I read the rules, it seems like they only apply to Federal Courts...
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 19:29:44
|
Dear Psalm,
If your email to me is bouncing, it is because your internet service provider as been identified as a major source of SPAM, and therefore your email is blocked by my internet provider. Please send me a Private Message on this forum, with your e-mail address and I will get a patch put in so that your email gets thru.
FRCP applies only to Federal Courts, but most states implement most of them as their State Rules of Civil Procedure. The State Rules are relaxed for Small Claims Courts, as attorneys are not allowed to appear there.
Hope that helps,
Lewis |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 12:42:28
|
Lewis,
Thanks for the reply. I just sent you a private message through the forum and it was also bounced back. I guess your email server is rejecting any email from my email address.
I have a question about the FRCP:
It says in Rule 4 (c)(1) -
"A Summons shall be served together with a copy of the complain"
-> Does this apply in small claims court??
It says in Rule 4 (i)(2)(A) -
"Service on an agency or corporation of the United States, or an officer or employee of the United States sued only in an official capacity, is effected by serving the United States in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(i)(1) and by also sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the officer, employee, agency, or corporation."
That means that original process must be served upon:
1 - United States Attorney (by Registered or Certified Mail)
2 - Attorney General (by Registered or Certified Mail)
3 - Federal Officer or Agency (by Registered or Certified Mail)
Does this apply in small claims as well?? If so, how do I find out what the address is for the United States Attorney and the Attorney General where the service of process must be mailed to??
That's it for right now.
I'll try to change email addresses and see if your email server still won't let it go through.
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Dear Psalm,
If your email to me is bouncing, it is because your internet service provider as been identified as a major source of SPAM, and therefore your email is blocked by my internet provider. Please send me a Private Message on this forum, with your e-mail address and I will get a patch put in so that your email gets thru.
FRCP applies only to Federal Courts, but most states implement most of them as their State Rules of Civil Procedure. The State Rules are relaxed for Small Claims Courts, as attorneys are not allowed to appear there.
Hope that helps,
Lewis
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 19:48:54
|
Hi Daniel,
The FRCP is not used in small claims courts. Most of them have their own "local" rules. You will have to go to the clerk for the small claims court and ask for a copy, or where to get a copy and then comply with those rules.
Lewis |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 13:04:09
|
Lewis,
I was browsing through this website and ran into this article:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/avoidance.html
And wantented to know what you have to say about that.
My question about going to court against the IRS in small claims is this: Does the strawman sue the IRS or can the real live person sue the IRS (Is that possible??)
Thanks for your help.
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2004 : 12:49:14
|
Hello Daniel,
I haven't had time to study the avoidance link, so I can't answer at this time.
In small claims court, you want the living man to sue the IRS for using the Strawman to steal your sweat, labor, and earnings.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2004 : 19:48:49
|
The 'avoidance' webpage says you should try and avoid employment. That would be nice, but how do you feed and shelter yourself without employment?
How many cash jobs does it take to pay the rent?
I like the idea on avoiding banks. Since they are now charging you $5 to cash your check you'd think you'd have no problem cashing your check.. but no. I went to a different branch to cash my check today and you wouldn't believe the excuse they gave me for not cashing my check 'next time'. I certainly won't be going back to that branch! |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2004 : 22:02:50
|
Lewis,
As I was studying the "Florida Small Claims Rules" I ran into a word which I didn't know, so I looked it up in my little "Legal Dictoniary" that I just bought, and this is what I found:
REPLEVIN = A legal form of action ordinarily employed only to recover possession of specific personal property unlawfully withheld from the plaintiff, plus damages for its detention.
That seems to fit my situation just about as perfectely as possible.
The title company is holding money in escrow which is completelly unlawful since there is NO valid Lien. Only a "Notice" of Lien, which in fact has been terminated when I filed the UCC-3 -- Anyway, I did some more research and in the Florida Statutes, I found the following:
78.01 Right of replevin.--Any person whose personal property is wrongfully detained by any other person or officer may have a writ of replevin to recover said personal property and any damages sustained by reason of the wrongful taking or detention as herein provided. Notice of lis pendens to charge third persons with knowledge of plaintiff's claim on the property may be recorded.
78.02 What may not be taken by replevin.--No replevin shall lie:
(1) For any property taken by virtue of any warrant for the collection of any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to any statute;
(2) For defendant in any execution or attachment to recover goods and chattels seized by virtue thereof unless such goods and chattels are exempt from the execution or attachment;
(3) By the original defendant in replevin for property taken in replevin and delivered to plaintiff while it remains in the possession of the original plaintiff or his or her agents.
(4) For any person unless that person has a right to reduce the goods taken into his or her possession.
78.03 Jurisdiction.--An action for replevin must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction based on the value of the property sought to be replevied. When property consists of separate articles, the value of any one of which is within the jurisdiction of a lower court but taken together will exceed that jurisdiction, the plaintiff may not divide the property to give jurisdiction to the lower court to enable the plaintiff to bring separate actions therefor.
78.032 Venue.--An action for replevin may be brought in any county where the property sought to be replevied is located, where the contract was signed, where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action accrued. An action that includes a cause of action for replevin and other causes of action may be brought in any county where venue is proper under chapter 47 for any of the other causes of action or in any county where venue for the replevin is proper under this section.
78.055 Complaint; requirements.--To obtain an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of replevin prior to final judgment, the plaintiff shall first file with the clerk of the court a complaint reciting and showing the following information:
(1) A description of the claimed property that is sufficient to make possible its identification and a statement, to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff of the value of such property and its location.
(2) A statement that the plaintiff is the owner of the claimed property or is entitled to possession of it, describing the source of such title or right. If the plaintiff's interest in such property is based on a written instrument, a copy of said instrument must be attached to the complaint.
(3) A statement that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, the means by which the defendant came into possession thereof, and the cause of such detention according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff.
(4) A statement that the claimed property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to law.
(5) A statement that the property has not been taken under an execution or attachment against the property of the plaintiff or, if so taken, that it is by law exempt from such taking, setting forth a reference to the exemption law relied upon.
OK, I guess that answers my question: Under 78.055 (4) It forces you to say that the property has not been taken for a "tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to law" -- but in my case, has the tax really been "pursuant to law"?? Does the IRS ever comply with the "law"??
Also, under 78.02 it says "No replevin shall lie: (1) For any property taken by virtue of any warrant for the collection of any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to any statute;"
--> "by virtue of any warrant" - As far as I know the IRS never issues "warrants"
Please let me know what your thought are about "REPLEVIN"??
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2004 : 22:25:50
|
Lewis,
I have another "legal" question to ask you. As I was studying my "A Student's Guide To The FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE" that I had bought, I was learning about the different kinds of "Jurisdiction".
One thing that really caught my attention was "In Rem Jurisdiction".
IN REM = Into or against the thing. Signifies actions against the res, or thing, rather than against the person. The goal of proceeding in rem is the disposition of property without reference to the title of individual claimants.
ACTIONS IN REM = Those that seek NOT to impose personal liability but rather to affect the interests of persons in a specific thing (or res). Typical modern examples are actions for partition of, or for foreclosure of a lien upon, or to quiet title to, real estate.
Wouldn't it be possible to file a lawsuit against the actual property (i.e. the money held in escrow) which would force the "creditors" to fight over the "res" and since the IRS is not a true "creditor" they probably wouldn't show up and thus you should be able to recover the property (the real live beeing, who is a creditor over the "strawman").
What is your experience with "IN REM" lawsuits??
By the way, did you get my one email where I asked you to review my UCC Filings. I wanted you to take a look at what I had filed so you can tell me if I wasn't doing things right...
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
psalm119
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2004 : 22:55:21
|
Lewis,
By the way, this is the specific section of the article which is what I was refering to when I was asking about the article that I mentioned in my previous post (about avoidance):
Avoid Court Appearance
1 Corinthians 6:1, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers."
The terms "unjust" and "saints" above are referring to unbelievers as opposed to believers. How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice! Why set them to judge who are least esteemed (i.e. the heathen) in the Christ's assembly (1 Corinthians 6:4)?
We are never to appear in secular courts voluntarily, because that will cause joinder and give them jurisdiction over us to take away our liberty. This is what happened to Paul in Acts 25 through 26. Paul's life was in danger, and he appealed to Caesar's courts (Acts 25:11-12,21,25; 28:19), and look at what the outcome was:
Acts 26:32, "Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar."
In other words, the king himself, Agrippa, wished the apostle's immediate liberation; but this was now rendered impracticable, because he had appealed to Caesar; the appeal was no doubt registered, and the business must now proceed to a full hearing. If Festus had decided before Paul had made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the appeal had now been made, to Caesar he must go.
Even Jesus said, in Luke 12:11, "When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers..." Notice we are not to bring ourselves voluntarily to their courts, but they are the ones who must bring us to their courts.
When one is wronged by another, he believes that a debt is owed to him. He expects a payment of some sort, whether monetary or not. The court system exists to avenge wronged or injured parties. Lawsuits result from people trying to satisfy their debts. But bondservants of Christ are to "forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). We are commanded to not avenge ourselves (Romans 12:19) because vengeance belongs to the Lord (Psalms 94:1). Read Matthew 5:38-48 for Jesus's teaching on what we are to do when wronged by another.
By going to court, we refuse to forgive until the debt is paid in full, and only we can determine the acceptable compensation. We desire, seek, plan, and carry out our revenge. When we seek to correct the wrong done to us, we set ourselves up as judge. "Who art thou that judgest another?" (James 4:12). "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door." (James 5:9).
Each one of us has broken the laws of God and should be condemned to death by the hand of the highest court in the Universe. But if you contrast what was done to you with what you've been forgiven of, there's no comparison. It would not even put a dent in the debt you owe! If you feel cheated, you have lost your concept of the mercy extended to you. "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14-15, Mark 11:25-26).
What are your thoughts on this??
"I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws."
PSALM 119:30 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2004 : 09:44:18
|
Yes, judge not, but surely speak out! For there is One Judge, Lawgiver and King.
We are to be witnesses to the crimes of the un-just, and "screaming from the roof tops" will prepare the "case." The wicked will be revealed at such points of evidence, and seeing themselves not as Truly Father Sees, they will con-tinue to "judge" and attempt to hide their lies and false rulings, to no avail.
Remember, "Hey!... the emperor has no clothes?"
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2004 : 13:12:39
|
Hello Daniel,
We must never go to court against our brother. And, our brother is an living man (or woman).
But, a corporate fiction can never be a brother. It is a dead thing.
Notice that all those verses are talking about living men, not dead things.
Just my 2 copper coins worth,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Jaywood216
Occasional Poster
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2004 : 00:42:10
|
Hello all,
I have a question someone may be able to help me with here. It may be off the subject and if so, excuse me. I just got a notice of suit for forclosure on a house in Florida and part of the deal is that the bank is asking the court for reestablishment of the lost note. They say the note was lost in transfer from one of the banks to another. My understanding of this is that if there is no original note there is no case, as a copy is not valid. Of course if they sold the note, which they did, and signed the back of if and wrote on it "pay to the order" of someone, they would not want to bring that note into court. And the courts being run by the banks, they could have a pretty good chance of getting what they want. What I was wondering is if anyone has or knows of any court cases in this regard. I would appreciate it very much. Best to all, Jim |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2004 : 11:53:09
|
Hello Jim,
The best two cases are Lloyd vs Lawrence and McKay vs Capitol Resources. Fully establishes the argument that claiming it is lost is not good enough.
Send me a Private Message with your e-mail address, and I will send you a copy of them.
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2004 : 20:31:22
|
Hey Lewis,
Those look like they are worth reading about.
Can you give full cites, or at least tell us
the courts they were heard in, to ease our
ability to look them up. I for one would
greatly appreciate it, and I am sure there
are others who would as well.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Hello Jim,
The best two cases are Lloyd vs Lawrence and McKay vs Capitol Resources. Fully establishes the argument that claiming it is lost is not good enough.
Send me a Private Message with your e-mail address, and I will send you a copy of them.
Regards,
Lewis
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2004 : 21:45:21
|
Hi Ishmael,
OK, here they are:
Lloyd vs Lawrence - 472 F.2d 313
McKay vs Capitol Resources - 940 S.W.2d 869
Hope those help. If you have WordPerfect, or a new enough version of Word to read WordPerfect correctly, I can e-mail you the cases. Just drop me a PM.
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2004 : 00:02:31
|
Psalm quote:
which I terminated with a UCC-3 Form (Also filed at the county level) but the problem I'm having is that once I sold my house, the Title Company refused to accept the fact that the "Notice Of Federal Tax Lien" had been terminated with the UCC-3 that I filed and so they decided that all the money due to the IRS would be taken out at closing.
I was talking to someone knowledgeable of the UCC-3 termination process tonight and remembered your situation with the escrow company, so I asked some questions about that.
What I would like to know is how did the escrow company know you had a lien on the house? Did they do a search in the county records? If they did do a search, and the lien was still showing up, then the county recorder didn't do his job in terminating the lien--the lien should no longer be public record after the UCC-3 is filed. The lien SHOULD BE GONE and the escrow company has NO RIGHT to keep your money, because there is NO LIEN if there is no lien in the county records.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 14 Aug 2004 00:05:50 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2004 : 01:35:36
|
Another thing could have happened: You did not have the proper documentation to back up your UCC-3, and that is why the escrow company wouldn't accept it. When a UCC-3 is filed with the recorder any attachments should be filed with it so that anyone looking at it, can view them. Proper documentation would be like an Emergency Administrative Complaint and then a Notice of Default when the IRS failed to respond.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 14 Aug 2004 01:38:40 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
UCC-1 / LIENS / UCC-3 / THEFT??
