On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:18 AM, jack danials <cornmash007@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Mon, 12/5/11, no.1lonewolf <no.1lonewolf@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: no.1lonewolf <no.1lonewolf@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] FW: ALL STATE COURTS ARE CONDUCTING COURTS MARTIAL OF CIVILIANS!
To: MYRLANDsMETHODs@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 5, 2011, 1:16 AM
From Luis Ewing at [rcwcodebuster (at) gmail.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) live.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) comcast.net] or [rcwcodebuster (at) hotmail.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) yahoo.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) aol.com] or [rcwcodebuster (at) mail.com] or telephone: (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or call me on SKYPE at [luisewing]
Web Sites under construction: [www.luisewing.com] or [www.ultimateusers.com]
SUBJECT: ALL STATE COURTS ARE CONDUCTING A . . . GENERAL COURTS MARTIAL . . . OR . . . A SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL . . . OR . . . AN INVESTIGATION . . . AGAINST CIVILIANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE MILITIA!!!!
VIP!!!!
PRESS RELEASE!!!
"RCW 1.16.090 Legislative declaration for civil liberties day of remembrance.
The legislature recognizes that on February 19, 1942, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 WHICH AUTHORIZED MILITARY RULE OVER CIVILIAN LAW AND LIVES . . ."
See: SHIMOLA v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 42 FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., 40 Fed. Sup. 808 (1941). This case states . . . "CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT TO MILITARY EXIGENCY." . . . For additional information on this fact, see West's Key 10, CJS War, sections 10, 11 and 12, as well as the Civil Rights Acts codified under USCA 42, § 1981 and 1982 and the origination of the 14th Amendment.
A SOFT KIND OF MARTIAL LAW????
<http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/law-enforcement-corruption--abuse/police-brutality-during-occupy-wall-st-protest.html>
<http://cofcc.org/2011/10/obamas-goons-setting-up-federal-checkpoints-on-the-highways/>
DID YOU KNOW THAT . . . "THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED" . . . EXISTS ONLY IN . . . "A MILITARY COURT ROOM!!!!"
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A JUDGE IN OPEN COURT SAY THE FOLLOWING TO A PRO-SE LITIGANT WHO WANTED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF:
"WELL YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, THE PERSON WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT"????
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THAT BEFORE????
WELL, I CAN PROVE THAT IS A HALF-TRUTH AND A LIE!!!!
AND NOT ONLY CAN I PROVE THAT IS A LIE, I CAN PROVE THAT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE:
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE READING THIS YOU WILL KNOW THAT . . . "THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED" . . . EXISTS ONLY IN . . . "A MILITARY COURT."
PLEASE FORWARD LUIS EWING'S THREE (3) NEW FREE FLYERS FAR AND WIDE, MAKE COPIES AND HAND THESE OUT IN FRONT OF EVERY COURT HOUSE AND START OBJECTING TO ALL THE JUDGES TO THE MILITARY NATURE OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS!!!!
Your Honor, I have the Right to know . . . "THE NATURE AND THE CAUSE."
Now watch, the judge will start reading off . . . "THE STATUTORY CHARGES" . . . that are already on the traffic citation that the 80 IQ or less ANDROID COP gave you!
Your Honor, I object to your wasting tax payers money and time reading me the charge again, I DID GRADUATE FROM HIGH SKOOL AND I AM CAPABLE OF READING ENGLISH YOUR HONOR, I already know THE CAUSE your honor, why are you reading me THE CAUSE over again, that's NOT want I want to know your honor!
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, IS THIS A GENERAL OR SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL OR IS THIS AN INVESTIGATION UNDER A COURTS MARTIAL PROCEEDING, IS THIS A MILITARY COURT ROOM????
Ha, ha, now we can really start to have some fun with . . . THE THIEVES IN BLACK ROBES OF TREASON!!!!
* * *
Did you know that . . . "THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED" . . . exists only in a . . . MILITARY COURT ROOM????
Did you know that according to . . . "ALL STATE CONSTITUTIONS" . . . show that . . . "ALL MALES" . . . between the ages of 18 and 45 is presumed to be in either . . . "THE REGULATED MILITA" . . . or . . . "THE UNREGULATED MILITIA."
All those in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and the National Guard are in . . . "THE REGULATED MILITA."
All males between the ages of 18 and 45 are according to all State Constitutions presumed to be in . . . "THE UNREGULATED MILITIA."
Did you know that the Voter Registrar is also the Military Enrollment Officer for your "district"????
Did you know that they amended an amendment of an amendment to an amendment to a statute which is only "prima facie" evidence of the law, but in fact is not the law to make the statutes non-gender specific so that they could unlawfully bring . . . "WOMEN" . . . in to . . . "THE UNREGULATED MILITIA" . . . illegally and in violation of all current State Constitutions.
Go look at Rule 2 in the Civil Rules, specifically go see CR 2 and you will see that they have combined law and equity into one form of action called civil.
"RULE 2
ONE FORM OF ACTION
There shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action.""
"But the common-law forms of action never existed in Washington, for the first territiorial legislature in 1854 enacted: "That all common law forms of action and all distinctions between law and equity are hereby abolished, and hereafter there shall be one form of action, to establish and enforce private rights, which shall be called a civil action." 1 Laws of Washington Territory (1st Sess., 1854) 131, section 1 [cf. RCW 4.04.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., section 153]." BROWN v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, 53 Wn.(2d) 142, 149 [No. 34414. En Banc. November 21, 1958.] And;
"The highest courts of law and equity, both state and national derive their jurisdiction from the Constitution and from the statutes. This distinction as far as inherent powers are concerned, has been destroyed in this state by the statute which provides that there shall be but one form of action hereafter for the enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs, which shall be called a "civil action" Parmeter v. Bourne, 8 Wash, 45 (Jan 1894). And;
"Section 2 of Code of 1869 abolishes all distinctions between law and equity, and declares that there shall be but one form of action, to be called a civil action." GARRISON v. CHEENEY, 1 Wash. T. 490, 491 (August 19, 1873). And;
Then search your State statutes and you will see that they have abolished all forms of criminal pleadings just like they have done in Washington State in this statute right here:.
"RCW 10.01.030 Pleadings--Forms abolished.
All the forms of pleading in criminal actions heretofore existing, are abolished; and hereafter, the forms of pleading, and the rules by which the sufficiency of pleadings is to be determined, are those prescribed herein. [Code 1881 § 1002; 1873 p 224 § 185; 1869 p 240 § 180; RRS § 2022.]."
They have brought in the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction and combined it together with Rule 2 and the martial law jurisdiction.
Did you know that all of . . .THE 1984 COURT REFORM ACTS . . . specifically were derived from an earlier Act passed in 1967 at the same time that . . . THE COAST GUARD . . . was transferred to . . . THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . . . and given the authority to prescribe amendments to all Title 49 regulations under . . . DOT Order No. 1100.1 (49 CFR, part 1)????
Did you know that 49 CFR is part of . . . "THE LAW OF CARRIAGE" . . . which means . . . "COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION."
Now go see . . . THE MANUAL FOR COURTS - MARTIAL . . . by the United States Department of Defense at the third page clearly shows that . . . THE COAST GUARD . . . is part of . . . THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . . . and reads :
"REGULATIONS SUPPLEMENTING THE MANUAL FOR COURT-MARTIAL
PREFATORY NOTE: The regulations appearing in the Court Guard Supplement to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, were prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury until the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Transportation on 1 April 1967. Under DOT Order No. 1100.1 (49 CFR, Part 1) the Commandant now possesses the authority to prescribe amendments to these regulations.
References herein to "the Code" and "UCMJ" mean The Uniform Code of Military Justice [10 USCA §§ 801 - 940].
References herein to sections and subsections of this Supplement may be cited as follows:
"Section 0103b (2) CG Supp. MCM"
It is now undisputed that the . . . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION" . . . is now under control and supervision by . . . THE COAST GUARD . . . and . . . THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE [10 USCA §§ 801 - 940] . . . in direct violation of . . . THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT.
<http://cofcc.org/2011/10/obamas-goons-setting-up-federal-checkpoints-on-the-highways/>
What I am trying to show you here is how our criminally corrupt State Court systems and treasonous Bar Attorneys, Prosecutors, and Jewish Attorney controlled legislatures are trying to hide from you!!!!
What the Courts are trying to hide from you is . . . THE FACT . . . that all of our court's are using a form of Martial Law & Military Jurisdiction against you and they use the rules of Admiralty & Maritime Jurisdiction against you which have all been merged together into form of action called Civil so that you cannot tell which law form they are using against you!!!!
What is the nature of this cause or case????
They never tell you the nature of the accusation!!!!
They never tell you that . . . THE NATURE . . . of this cause of action is under . . . A MARTIAL LAW . . . and/or . . . MILITARY JURISDICTION . . . using the rules of Admiralty procedure which they have merged with the rules of law and equity so that you cannot tell the difference of the nature of the accusation, is it civil, is it criminal, is it law, is it common law or equity????
Benedicts on Admiralty, 7th Ed. Jurisdiction, Section 104:
"It is also abundantly established that by the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the national government took over the traditional body of rules, precepts and practices known to lawyers and legislatures as the maritime law, so far as the courts invested with admiralty jurisdiction should accept and apply to them. . ." and citing "U.S. v. Gill, 4 U.S. 426, 1 L.Ed. 844, `The words of the Constitution must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England (from whose codes and practice we derive our systems of jurisprudence and generally speaking, obtain the best glossary). . .' per justice Washington."; section 105 Benedict Supra "As to recognition of State regulation of maritime law, the matter is admiralty stated in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959), cf. In the Matter of Alexander McNeal, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 236, 20 L.Ed. 624."
Under Admiralty, they have all three parts of the law that they would proceed with in the court's normally which is civil, criminal and equity, but under Admiralty, its all civil, even the criminal procedure is civil and that is why Rule 2 was developed, i.e., so you wouldn't know what's going on, but Rule 2 clearly tells you that there is only 1 form of action called civil.
The Judiciary Act of 1792 makes it clear that Congress said that . . . "the forms and modes of proceeding in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to the course of civil law" . . . and reads:
"SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury."
27 CRF 72.11 defines all crimes as being "commercial crimes and reads:
Sec. 72.11 Meaning of terms.
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.
...
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime."
Furthermore all revenue is collected under maritime principles; see The Huntress, 92 Ware (Dav. 82) 89; 4 West Law J.38; 12 Fed. Case 984, 922:
"In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of Admiralty cognizance, that Congress considered them as civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, "including," etc.. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court as a court of the law of nations." The Huntress, 92 Ware (Dav. 82) 89; 4 West Law J.38; 12 Fed. Case 984, 922
THE COAST GUARD IS THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION!!!!
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS THE COAST GUARD!!!!
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS BEEN MERGED WITH THE COAST GUARD!!!!
Did you know that . . . "INSURANCE" . . . is only required of those who are involved in . . . COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION????
Did you know that . . . A POLICY OF INSURANCE IS A MARITIME CONTRACT????
"A policy of insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of admiralty jurisdiction." De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. No. #, 776 (1815).
Benedict on Admiralty, 1850 says:
"Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on the system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of the act, until further provision could be made." Benedict on Admiralty, 1850.
"To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from the civil procedure, it is a mystery to most trial and appellate judges, and to the non-specialist lawyer who finds himself-sometimes to his surprise– in a case cognizable only on the admiralty `side' of the court. `Admiralty practice', said Mr. Jackson, `is a unique system of substantive laws and procedures with which members of this court are singularly deficient in experience." Unification act of 1964 (34 PRD 325, quoting, Black Diamond S.S. Corp. v. Stewart & Sons, 336 U.S. 386, 69 S.Ct. 622, 93 L.Ed. 754 (1949).
* * *
WASHINGTON LAW:
RCW 10.37.015 Charge by information or indictment — Exceptions.
*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5195-S.SL) ***
No person shall be held to answer in any court for an alleged crime or offense, unless upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, or upon an indictment by a grand jury, except in cases of misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor before a district or municipal judge, OR BEFORE A COURT MARTIAL.
[1987 c 202 § 167; 1927 c 103 § 1; Code 1881 § 764; RRS § 2023. Formerly RCW 10.37.010, part.]
Notes:
Intent -- 1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
* * *
The Sixth Amendment only gives . . . "THE RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL."
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT . . . TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE."
The Sixth Amendment does NOT use the word . . . "REPRESENT" . . . or . . . "REPRESENTED."
Go look at your State Constitution, it will probably say that you have . . . "THE RIGHT TO DEFEND IN PERSON" . . . and/or . . . have . . . "THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL."
Article 1, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution clearly reads in part:
"SECTION 22 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, OR BY COUNSEL, . . . "
THIS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE LAW IN THE RCW's IS UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO WAIVE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN ORDER TO EXERT ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!!
Article 1, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution was formerly worded in the conjunctive "and" reads in part:
"Original text -- Art. 1 Section 22 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS -- In criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, AND BY COUNSEL, . . ."
THEY CANNOT CHANGE THE LAW, THEY CAN ONLY CHANGE THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON WHICH IS NOT THE LAW,
THEREFORE, I still have . . . THE RIGHT TO BOTH RIGHTS . . . THE RIGHT TO DEFEND IN PERSON . . . AND . . . BY COUNSEL!!!!
* * *
But do notice, you will see with your own eyes, your State Constitution does NOT use the word . . . "REPRESENT" . . . or . . . "REPRESENTED" . . . anywhere in your State Constitution!!!!
* * *
THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED . . . EXISTS ONLY IN . . . A MILITARY TRIBUNAL PURSUANT TO RCW 38 ET SEQ!!!!
Now, go to . . . "GOOGLE" . . . and type in . . . REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON . . . and go look for . . . TITLE 38 . . . in the Revised Code of Washington.
RCW 38 is entitled . . . "RCW 38 MILITIA & MILITARY AFFAIRS."
Now go look for . . . "RCW 38.38.376 (1)(2) and you will see with your own eyes:
THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED . . . EXISTS ONLY IN A MILITARY COURT!!!!
RCW 38.38.376 [Art. 38] Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel.
(1) The trial counsel of a general or special court-martial shall prosecute in the name of the state, and shall, under the direction of the court, prepare the record of the proceedings.
(2) THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED in his or her defense before a general or special court-martial or at an investigation under RCW 38.38.316 as provided in this subsection.
IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED THAT THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED EXISTS ONLY IN A GENERAL OR SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL OR AT AN INVESTIGATION IN A MILITARY COURT ROOM!!!!
Now, go back to . . . "GOOGLE" . . . and type in . . . "UNITED STATES CODE."
Then when you get to the United States Code, type in 10 in the Title box and then type in 838 in the section box and you will see the following:
"TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER VII > § 838
§ 838. Art. 38. Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel
(a)The trial counsel of a general or special court-martial shall prosecute in the name of the United States, and shall, under the direction of the court, prepare the record of the proceedings.
(b)
(1)THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED in his defense before a general or special court-martial or at an investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32) as provided in this subsection."
IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED THAT THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED EXISTS ONLY IN A GENERAL OR SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL OR AT AN INVESTIGATION IN A MILITARY COURT ROOM!!!
Wanna set up the . . . JUDGES????
Everyone needs to start asking all the judges the following questions:
YOUR HONOR, CAN THIS COURT COMPEL ME TO WAIVE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN ORDER TO EXERT ANOTHER?
The Judge will say NO in most circumstances, unless you have a tricky or corrupt judge in which case he will start to go into a long dissertation about what Constitutional Rights you have or don't have and your response should be:
1.) I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, Simmons et al. v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), . . . at page 394, says that I cannot be compelled to waive one Constitutional Right in order to exert another and reads:
"In these circumstances, we find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simmons et al. v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, at 394, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)
2.) YOUR HONOR, IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION, DOES THIS COURT HAVE THE LEGAL OR LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE ME TO WAIVE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BEFORE I CAN EXERT ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT????
If the Judge is honest, he should say . . . "NO."
Now we have the Judge right where we want him!
YOUR HONOR, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED?
All the judges will say . . . "YES YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANY ATTORNEY YOU CHOOSE."
I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, WHICH STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE SAYS THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED????
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ANY SO CALLED RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED!
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ONLY SAYS THAT I HAVE . . . "THE RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL."
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, THE STATE CONSTITUTION ONLY SAYS THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF IN PERSON OR BY ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, THE SO CALLED . . . "RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED HAS NO FOUNDATION IN LAW FOR CIVILIANS."
In anticipation that the judge will tell you that you are in a State court and NOT a federal court and will tell you that 10 U.S.C. 838 only applies to federal courts and has no bearing in this so called State Court, ask him the following question:
YOUR HONOR, DOES . . . "THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED COME FROM RCW 38.38.376????
[Note: Find and Replace RCW 38.38.376 with your state statute and make the exact same argument.]
If the judge tells you he doesn't know because he does not have the statute right in front of him, then read him the following:
YOUR HONOR, RCW 38.38.376 says:
RCW 38.38.376 [Art. 38] Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel.
(1) The trial counsel of a general or special court-martial shall prosecute in the name of the state, and shall, under the direction of the court, prepare the record of the proceedings.
(2) THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED in his or her defense before a general or special court-martial or at an investigation under RCW 38.38.316 as provided in this subsection.
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS MILITARY NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING!
YOUR HONOR, IS THIS A MILITARY COURT ROOM????
YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, BOTH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW . . . "THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THIS PROCEEDING" . . . SO I AM ASKING YOU WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING, IS THIS A GENERAL OR SPECIAL COURTS MARTIAL????
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR, YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED ON THE COURT RECORD THAT THIS IS NOT A MILITARY COURT ROOM DIDN'T YOU????
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR, YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED ON THE COURT RECORD THAT . . . "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED, CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH SECTION OF THE STATE CODES OR STATUTES OR WHICH ARTICLE AND WHICH SECTION OF THE U.S. OR STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT . . . I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED"????
* * *
ARE YOU IN THE MILITIA????
* * *
OREGON LAW:
"396.105 Militia comprised of organized and unorganized militia. (1) The militia of the state shall be divided into the organized militia and the unorganized militia.
(2) The organized militia shall be composed of the Oregon Army National Guard and the Oregon Air National Guard, which forces together with an inactive National Guard shall comprise the Oregon National Guard; the Oregon State Defense Force whenever such a state force shall be duly organized; and such additional forces as may be created by the Governor.
(3) THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA SHALL CONSIST OF ALL ABLE-BODIED RESIDENTS OF THE STATE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 45 WHO ARE NOT SERVING IN ANY FORCE OF THE ORGANIZED MILITIA or who are not on the state retired list and who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States. [1961 c.454 §5(1),(2),(3); 1989 c.361 §2; 2005 c.512 §3]
396.110 [Repealed by 1961 c.454 §213]"
398.206 Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel. (1) The trial counsel of a general or special court-martial shall prosecute in the name of the state and shall, under the direction of the court, prepare the record of the proceedings.
(2) THE ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED in the accused's defense before a general or special court-martial by civilian counsel if provided by the accused, or by military counsel of the accused's own selection if reasonably available, or by the defense counsel detailed under ORS 398.136. Should the accused have counsel of the accused's own selection, the defense counsel and assistant defense counsel, if any, who were detailed, shall, if the accused so desires, act as associate counsel; otherwise they shall be excused by the military judge or by the president of a court-martial without a military judge.
* * *
CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE SECTION 120 TO 130:
"120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard, State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the active militia--and the unorganized militia.
121. THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA CONSISTS OF ALL PERSONS LIABLE TO SERVICE IN THE MILITIA, but not members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.
122. THE MILITIA OF THE STATE CONSISTS OF ALL ABLE-BODIED MALE CITIZENS AND ALL OTHER ABLE-BODIED MALES WHO HAVE DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO ARE BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND FORTY-FIVE, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State."
* * *
TEXAS LAW:
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE C. STATE MILITARY FORCES AND VETERANS
CHAPTER 432. TEXAS CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
SUBCHAPTER F. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE
Sec. 432.053. INVESTIGATION. (a) A charge or specification may not be referred to A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth has been made. This investigation must include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and a recommendation as to the disposition that should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.
(b) THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO BE ADVISED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND OF HIS RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED AT THAT INVESTIGATION BY COUNSEL. ON THE ACCUSED'S OWN REQUEST, HE IS ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY CIVILIAN COUNSEL IF PROVIDED BY HIM, or by military counsel of his own selection if that counsel is reasonably available, OR BY COUNSEL DETAILED BY THE OFFICER EXERCISING GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE COMMAND.
* * *
KANSAS LAW
48-2505: (KCMJ Art. 27) Detail of trial counsel and defense counsel. (a) (1) Trial counsel and defense counsel shall be detailed for each general and special court-martial. Assistant trial counsel and assistant and associate defense counsel may be detailed for each general and special court-martial. The governor shall prescribe regulations providing for the manner in which counsel are detailed for such courts-martial and for the persons who are authorized to detail counsel for such courts-martial.
(2) No person who has acted as investigating officer, military judge or court member in any case may act later as trial counsel, assistant trial counsel or, unless expressly requested by the accused, as defense counsel or assistant or associate defense counsel in the same case. No person who has acted for the prosecution may act later in the same case for the defense, nor may any person who has acted for the defense act later in the same case for the prosecution.
(b) Trial counsel or defense counsel detailed for a general court-martial:
(1) Must be a judge advocate who is a graduate of an accredited law school or is a member of the bar of the highest court of a state; and
(2) must be certified as competent to perform such duties by the judge advocate general of the state military forces.
(c) In the case of a special court-martial:
(1) THE ACCUSED SHALL BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE TRIAL BY COUNSEL HAVING THE QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUBSECTION (b) unless counsel having such qualifications cannot be obtained on account of physical conditions or military exigencies. If counsel having such qualifications cannot be obtained, the court may be convened and the trial held, but the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why counsel with such qualifications could not be obtained;
(2) if the trial counsel is qualified to act as counsel before a general court-martial, the defense counsel detailed by the convening authority must be a person similarly qualified; and
(3) if the trial counsel is a judge advocate or a member of the bar of the highest court of the state, the defense counsel detailed by the convening authority must be one of the foregoing.
History: L. 1972, ch. 203, § 48-2505; L. 1988, ch. 191, § 20; July 1.
* * *
NOTE: I HAVE THREE (3) NEW FLYERS THAT HELP YOU MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS IN COURT!!!! – Please send me an e-mail to the addresses listed above and below and request that I send you the three (3) new flyers that help teach you to argue that you have a right to "manage and plead your own cause personally" or have "the assistance of counsel" and NOT waive your rights to counsel when you refuse to take or accept one of their piece of shit traitor bar attorneys!
* * *
WHEN YOU FIND THE SIMILAR . . . "MILITIA & MILITARYAFFAIRS STATUTES" . . . regarding the alleged . . . "RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION" . . . in your STATE, please send it to me so that I can add it to my list above and then I will send it back to all those who are in your STATE who are on my FIFTY STATES E-MAIL LIST!!!!
* * *
MY NEW JUDICIARY ACT FLYER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU CAN APPEAR IN COURT BY ONE (1) OF THREE (3) DIFFERENT WAYS which does NOT include any alleged . . . "RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED."
Also please notice in my . . . NEW JUDICIARY ACT FLYER . . . that you will NOT find any wording that says . . . THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN ORDER TO . . . "MANAGE AND PLEAD YOUR OWN CAUSES PERSONALLY" . . . OR . . . TO DEFEND YOURSELF!!!!
* * *
Please also see my . . . NEW RIGHT TO COUNSEL FLYER . . . which also clearly shows you that the alleged . . . "RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED" . . . has . . . "NO FOUNDATION IN LAW" . . . it's NOT in the Sixth Amendment or in your State Constitution!!!!
Please notice that my . . . NEW RIGHT TO COUNSEL FLYER . . . also shows you that neither the Sixth Amendment or your State Constitution includes any wording that says . . . THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN ORDER TO DEFEND YOURSELF!!!!
* * *
NO YOUR HONOR, I REFUSE TO BE . . . "REPRESENTED."
YOUR HONOR, CAN I SPECIFICALLY HIRE AN ATTORNEY . . . UNDER A CONTRACT . . . TO ONLY PROVIDE ME . . . "ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" . . . TO BE . . . "MY MOUTH PIECE" . . . AND SPEAK FOR ME AS . . . MY NEXT FRIEND . . . TO BE . . . MY MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET . . . AND . . . "NOT TO REPRESENT ME"????
NO YOUR HONOR, I AM NOT GOING TO HIRE ANY TRAITOR OR TREASONOUS
BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT ME AND I DO NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL EITHER!!!!
NO YOUR HONOR, I AM NOT GOING TO ACCEPT ANY TRAITOR OR TREASONOUS PUBLIC DEFENDER TO REPRESENT ME AND I DO NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL EITHER!!!!
NO YOUR HONOR, I AM NEVER GOING TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL, LET THE RECORD SO REFLECT!!!!
* * *
Everyone needs to study the attached FREE FLYERS and read over the above arguments over and over again and start making these type of oral arguments in court and object, object, object!
* * *
Did you know that when you hire any attorney to . . . "REPRESENT YOU" . . . that you have . . . "WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL"????
Did you know that when you accept any Public Defender who is an attorney to . . . "REPRESENT YOU" . . . that you have . . . "WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL"????
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison, accept the public defender!
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
Did you know that when you accept or allow a public defender who is an attorney who is a member of the very same State Bar Association as all the U.S. Attorney's and all the Judges, that you have . . . "WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL"????
THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
EVERYBODY WHO ALLOWS AN ATTORNEY TO . . . "REPRESENT THEM" . . . VOLUNTEERS TO GO TO PRISON UNDER ARGERSENGER v. HAMLIN which reads:
""We hold that no person may be deprived of his liberty who has been denied the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This holding is applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. The denial of assistance of counsel will preclude the imposition of a jail sentence. . . . Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, UNLESS THE ACCUSED IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts." ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (June 12, 1972). And;
Now go read Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975) and then read . . . "THE DISSENTING OPINION" . . . in Farreta, supra, and then go back and read Argersenger v. Hamlin, supra, and then tell me if you can see or figure out where . . . "THEY SWITCHED OUT THE WORDS" . . . "REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL" . . . in place of . . . "ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" . . . in . . . "A DICTA LIKE MANNER" . . . and then tell me where in the Sixth Amendment does it say that any of us has an alleged . . . "RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED."
YES, I HAVE EXPOSED THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN LEGAL HISTORY!!!!
IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED THAT ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY WHO HIRES AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison try to do it yourself!
If you want to go back to prison for probation violations, try to do it yourself!
If you don't want to go to prison, HIRE ME . . . to provide you . . . "THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" . . . as envisioned by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, your State Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed on September 24, 1789 and is an Act of Congress
See 1 Stat 73 at section 35 which reads:
"SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. And there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden. And he shall receive as compensation for his services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.." The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat 73, CHAP. XX, Sec. 35.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides no less than . . . "three different' . . . ways by which a defendant may appear in court which is clearly worded in . . . the disjunctive . . . "OR' . . . and clearly states that . . . "the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally" . . . OR . . . "by assistance of such counsel" . . . OR . . . "attorneys at law" . . . as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act was codified at 28 U.S.C. 1654 which provides that:
"TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 111 > § 1654
§ 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."
28 U.S.C. 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel like section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1792 is also worded in the disjunctive "or" and it clearly states that . . . "In all courts of the United States . . . "the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally" . . . OR . . . "by counsel" . . . as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."
I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, THE ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE UNITED STATES CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT I CAN . . . "PLEAD AND MANAGE MY OWN CASES PERSONALLY" . . . AND DOES NOT STATE THAT I HAVE TO REPRESENT MYSELF OR THAT I HAVE TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN ORDER TO DO MY OWN CASE!!!!
I AM NOT REPRESENTING MY SELF AND I DO NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL!
I hope this is helpful to all those who don't want to be the fool for a client who hires an attorney to represent him!
I am putting together a complete motions to dismiss package based upon the fact that these courts have no legal authority to force counsel on you over your objection and I am putting together the complete documentation package that will set the court record to show that you . . . "NEVER WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL" . . . "WHEN YOU REFUSE TO BE REPRESENTED" . . . THEREFORE THEY CANNOT SEND YOU TO PRISON EVEN WHEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIME UNDER . . . ARGERSENGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40 (June 12, 1972).
FORMER U.S. SUPREME COURT JUDGE BORK SAID:
"EVERYONE VOLUNTEERS TO GO TO PRISON."
I HAVE FIGURED OUT THE FLAWS IN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, THE FARETTA CASE AND ARGERSENGER v. HAMLIN.
1.) Farettta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
2.) Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40 (June 12, 1972).
"We hold that no person may be deprived of his liberty who has been denied the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This holding is applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. The denial of assistance of counsel will preclude the imposition of a jail sentence.
. . . Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused is represented by counsel. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts." ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40 (June 12, 1972). And;
I had one client Henry D. Zeqzula in the United States District Court CR92-00438D(T)-00 find out the hard way that it is when you hire an attorney to represent you, that is when the court gets jurisdiction over you and can send you to jail. Specifically he came to me for help because his U.S. Probation Officer Mr. Felix Calvillo Jr. was threatening to throw him in jail for allegedly violating his . . . SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RELEASE . . . for a crime that he as already found guilty of before he ever hired me and he asked me for help to keep him out of jail, so I drafted up a complete Exhibit Package supported by Affidavits clearly showing that he had not in fact violated any terms or conditions of release in his probation contract or agreement. The Judge while "acting" very angry told him he was getting bad advice and wanted to know "who is doing this paperwork, they are practicing law without a license" and that he had better get an attorney by the next hearing or he was going to throw him in jail at the next hearing and this judge made the same repeated threats at each hearing while "acting" more angry at each hearing my client did not have an attorney there to "represent" him. My client eventually got scared, lost confidence in me and was just greedy and didn't want to pay me any more money unless I could guarantee to keep him out of jail and I told him that the attorney will not guarantee and will charge him more money than me, he ignored me, spent more money on an attorney and at the very next appearance, the judge appeared to be happy and sent him straight to jail for his alleged probation violations that were not even in his original probation contract. – You see when he hired an attorney, the court can strike or ignore all my paperwork and will only acknowledge the paperwork that is signed and filed by the attorney who "represents" you. The fact that he went to jail as soon as he hired an attorney proves what I am saying is true, i.e., the courts get jurisdiction over you when you hire an attorney to "represent" you or when you accept or allow a public defender to "represent" you.
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
I CAN KEEP YOU OUT OF PRISON EVEN IF YOU ARE FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL!
AND YES, I HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS IN THREE (3) DIFFERENT STATES IN VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASES!!!!
1.) ABOUT 5 TO 6 YEARS AGO, I TOOK TWO IRS TAX DEFENDANTS . . . "PATRICK GRANT DAVIS & MARTIN LOUIS BAUCOM" . . . ALL THE WAY TO TRIAL . . . "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE DIVISION IN DOCKET NO. 5:02-cr-26" . . . FOR A MAJOR INCOME TAX CASE, AND I LET THEM BE FOUND GUILTY ON PURPOSE. THE COURT DOCKET CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO GO TO PRISON ON ALL COUNTS OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS, INCOME TAX EVASION AND A KLEIN CONSPIRACY BECAUSE THEY WERE BUSINESS PARTNERS AT TRIAL, BUT THEY DID NOT GO TO PRISON WHEN THEY WERE WORKING WITH ME BECAUSE MY PAPERWORK SET THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THEY NEVER WAIVED THEIR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL, WHERE HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ANY BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEY LETTING YOU BE FOUND GUILTY ON PURPOSE AND STILL KEEPING YOU OUT OF JAIL AT THE SAME TIME???? – IT IS ONLY WHEN YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU OR ALLOW A PUBLIC DEFENDER TO REPRESENT YOU THAT YOU CAN GO TO PRISON! – Note: The last I heard from Pat Davis was that on the day of trial the U.S. Magistrate turned to the U.S. attorney and said "you know if we find these guys guilty, we will have to re-try them," they were found guilty and then the U.S. Attorney approached them and made a deal with them that if they signed a contract agreeing to pay back all the back taxes that they owed, that they would not ask the court to give them the jail time and Pat Davis told me that is what he did and that is the last I heard from these two guys in the Carolinas. Note: Now if at some later point his partner Martin Baucom got cold feet and ended up accepting or allowing a public defender to "represent" him at sentencing or any other subsequent hearing, that would not be my fault since he decided to quit me without telling me and further, not tell me that he was hiring an attorney or allowing a public defender to represent him. – Note: If they tricked him into believing that he had to have an attorney . . . "representing" . . . him, is that my fault? – Note: Therefore, if Martin Baucom went to prison it was the "attorneys" fault and not mine. – Note: This would prove my point, i.e., when you hire an attorney to . . . "represent" . . . you or allow a public defender to . . . "represent" . . . you, you in fact waived your rights to counsel and volunteered to go to prison!
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
Note: For the people who are too stupid to understand what I am telling you here, yes, the Court Dockets are going to show you that these people were found guilty and yes, they were in fact sentenced to jail, I already told you that, duh, that's just the recommended sales price, that does not mean that 1 or both of them paid it, duh, what I am telling you is that the Court's are NEVER going to print the fact in the court dockets, that 1 of these 2 people did NOT do any jail time and nor are the Court's ever going to come out with a published decision like Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40 (June 12, 1972) ever again!
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
2.) JUST 2 YEARS AGO, I TOOK . . . "ONE CALIFORNIA LOW LIFE DRUG DEALER RUSSELL GUILLEMOT" . . . ALL THE WAY TO TRIAL . . . "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COURT CAUSE NO. SCN221106" . . . AND I LET HIM BE FOUND GUILTY ON PURPOSE. THE COURT DOCKET CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO GO TO PRISON, BUT HE DID NOT GO TO PRISON IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL AFTER TURNING DOWN THE PLEA BARGAIN!!!! – WHERE HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ANY ATTORNEY LETTING YOU BE FOUND GUILTY OF MULTIPLE FELONY COUNTS OF MANUFACTURING MORE THAN 30 PLUS MARIJUANA PLANTS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND STILL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOU OUT OF JAIL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL AFTER TURNING DOWN THE PLEA BARGAIN????
Note: For the people who are too stupid to understand what I am telling you here, yes, the Court Dockets are going to show you that this guy was found guilty and yes, he was in fact sentenced to jail, I already told you that, duh, that's just the recommended sales price, that does not mean that he paid it, duh, what I am telling you is that the Court's are NEVER going to print the fact in the court dockets, that this guy did NOT do any jail time and nor are the Court's ever going to come out with a published decision like Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 31, 37, 38, 40 (June 12, 1972) ever again!
Note: None of these guys wanted to pay what it costs for me to even try to win, they only wanted to pay the bare minimum for me to just try to keep them from going to jail and when you "jew" down the price and squeeze me down that low on the wages, I can only do what I can do, i.e., I can only work so far as you are willing to pay me, so it's not really fair for anyone to blame me if things don't go their way, it's their fault for not paying what it really costs because the facts are in the real world you get what you pay for and in the legal world this is even more true, in fact in the legal world you are not going to get what you do not pay for unless you get lucky and find an honest judge which actually happens once in a while believe it or not! – The facts are that I did the most that I could within the extremely limited and small budges these guys gave me to work with and nobody can ask for more than that.
3.) IN TWO OF MY OWN RECENT CASES HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE . . . "IN THE PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CAUSE NO. XYC004075" . . . WHERE I WAS CHARGED WITH 1 COUNT OF HARASSMENT AND 1 VIOLATION OF A NO CONTACT ORDER AND I WAS LOOKING AT DOING TWO YEARS JAIL TIME AND EVEN THOUGH I HAD TO SIT IN JAIL WAITING FOR TRIAL BECAUSE I COULD NOT AFFORD THE EXPENSIVE BAIL EXTORTION FEES, I GOT BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED AND THE CASE NEVER WENT TO TRIAL BECAUSE I NEVER ACCEPTED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND I SET THE COURT RECORD TO SHOW THAT I DID NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL!!!!
THREE (3) POSITIVE RESULTS IN THREE (3) DIFFERENT CASES:
THREE (3) DIFFERENT CASES IN THREE (3) DIFFERENT STATES WHERE THREE (3) DIFFERENT PEOPLE INCLUDING MYSELF DID NOT GO TO JAIL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE TWO (2) OTHER THAN ME WERE FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO GO TO PRISON AS THE COURT DOCKETS CLEARLY SHOW! OH, AND I ALMOST FORGOT TO MENTION, MY CASE NEVER WENT TO TRIAL, I WAS NEVER FOUND GUILTY, THEY JUST HELD ME UNTIL MY SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED AND THEN THEY HAD TO KICK ME OUT OF THEIR JAIL ONTO THE STREETS A FREE MAN AGAIN BECAUSE THEY COULD NO LONGER TAKE ME TO TRIAL BECAUSE MY SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AND I NEVER WAIVED MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND NOW I HAVE GROUNDS FOR ONE HELL OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST PIERCE COUNTY FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION, FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT. I AM NOW PREPARING TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MY EX GIRLFRIEND FOR BARRATRY, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, PERJURY, LIBEL AND SLANDER, etc.
I am working on a complete . . . "KEEP YOU OUT OF JAIL MOTIONS PACKAGE" . . . that will keep you out of jail even though you are found guilty at trial package which I will release at some Seminars later this year probably starting in Spring or Fall of 2012 sometime, I have NOT decided yet?
RECOMMENDED READING:
1.) U.S. MILITARY JUSTICE HANDBOOK, Uniform Code of Military Justice Title 10, U.S.C. Chapter 47.
2.) Manual for court - martial, United States Dept. of Defense, Reprints from the collection of the University of Michigan Library.
3.) Manual for Courts - Martial, Arthur Murray, United States Army. Office of the Judge Advocate General
4.) Benedict on Admiralty.
5.) Blackstones (1897) - Commentaries
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
I hope everyone finds this information useful!
Sincerely
Luis Ewing at (360) 353-4846 or (253) 226-3741 or call me on SKYPE at [ luisewing ].
YES, YOU CAN MAKE DONATIONS!
However, I do NOT accept money orders or cashiers checks as I do NOT have a STATE issued DRIVERS LICENSE since 1996 and I have NOT have any STATE issued ID cards since 1998 and NO BANK will cash money orders or cashiers checks "without" current and valid ID period!
[http://www.usecashmovement.org/]
This will put the banks and their Jewish attorneys out of work, so that they will have to go get a real job!
There is . . . "NOTHING DISHONEST" . . . about me demanding . . . CASH ONLY . . . because I will give you a . . . "WRITTEN RECEIPT" . . . which will clearly show that you never paid me a . . . "LEGAL TENDER" . . . and that you only paid me in Title 18 Section 8 Obligations of the United States which are . . . NOT TAXABLE BY THE STATE . . . pursuant to . . . 31 U.S.C. 3124.
PS - Please send . . . "CASH ONLY DONATIONS" . . . wrapped in FOIL or COLORED PAPER by . . . PRIORITY MAIL . . . at the UNITED STATES POST OFFICE . . . or . . . FEDERAL EXPRESS . . . or . . . DHL . . . or . . . UPS . . . by "signature required receipt" mail only to the following postal location:
Luis Ewing
c/o General Delivery,
(City of) Copalis Crossing,
The State of Washington [98536]
Note: Be sure to send me an e-mail with "the tracking number" to let me know when you sent the package by "signature receipt mail" only. Be sure the check the box "signature receipt required" so that I can be sure to get your mail. I do not take responsibility for stolen mail because you didn't want to pay for the extra postage cost for sending a package by certified and/or registered receipt mail.
AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE LAW . . . "WITHOUT ADMISSION" . . . by the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT: RCW 2.48.190; RCW 38.38.256; 5 U.S.C. 500 (b); RCW 34.05.428 (1)(2); RCW 11.94.010; RCW 64.36.035; RCW 26.16.090; RCW 26.25.010; RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a); RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a); RCW 26.26.011 (19); RCW 26.27.021 (16); RCW 26.27.041; 18 U.S.C. § 1154; 18 U.S.C. § 1161; 18 U.S.C. § 2265; 25 U.S.C. § 1301; 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4); 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (8); 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a)(b)(c); 25 U.S.C. § 1901 -1963 ("ICWA"); 25 U.S.C. § 3631; 43 U.S.C. 1602; 44 Fed. Reg. 67584 to 67595 (1979); 26 CFR § 305.7871-1 (a); 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(40)(A); 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (b); 25 U.S.C. § 465; RCW 2.48.170; RCW 2.48.180 (7); APR 1.1 (a); GR 24 (b)(8); Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881; 28 U.S.C. § 1333; 28 U.S.C. § 1652; FRCP Rule 64; RCW 4.04.010; RCW 1.12.030; RCW 9.81.120; RCW 10.14.020 (1); RCW 10.14.020 (2); RCW 9A.50.060; 31 CFR Subtitle A; 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 CFR 292.1-3; 25 CFR 20; 14 CFR 300.1-6, 302.11; 12 CFR 19.3; 16 CFR 1024.61; 7CFR 273; 7 CFR 50.27; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31-33; 57 CFR 1.34; 5 CFR part 1201; 32 CFR 12.40, 12.45; 45 CFR 205); 21 CFR 1316.50; 20 CFR 802.201 (b), 802.202); 20 CFR 501.11; 45 U.S.C. 3153; 45 U.S.C. § 151; 20 CFR 725.362 (a), 725.365, 725.366 (b); 46 CFR 201.21; 38 CFR 14; 12 CFR 308.04; 18 CFR 385.2101; 29 CFR 2700.3 (b); 31 U.S.C. 731-32; 4 CFR 11, 28, GAO Orders 2713.2, 2752.1 and 2777.1; 13 CFR Part 10; 31 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1103; 49 CFR 1103.3; 12 CFR 747; 29 CFR 1200; 49 CFR 821, 831, 845; 29 CFR 2200.22; 13 CFR 121.11, 134.16; 42 U.S.C 406 (a); 20 CFR 416, subpart O; 29 CFR 1614.605; 40 CFR 124, 164.30, 22.10; Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, 52 N.E.2d 27 (Mass., 1943); U.S. v. Tarlowksi, 69-2 U.S.T.C., DC. E. DIST. N.Y.) 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969); In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995); Oregon State Bar. v. Ortiz, 713 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Or.App. 1986); People By Lefkowitz v. Lawrence Peska Assoc., 393 N.Y.S.2d 650, 652 (1977); Pulse v. North American Land Title Co., 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985); Cain v. National Bank and Trust Co., 268 N.W. 719, 723 (N.D. 1936); Louisiana Bar Ass'n v. Edwin, 519 So.2d 93 (La. 1988); Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997); In re Joseph Children, 470 S.E.2d 539 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996); Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (D. Colo. 1992); Taylor v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 874 P.2d 806, 809 (Okla. 1994); State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 371 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. 1962); State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. Indiana Real Estate Ass'n Inc., 191 N.E.2d 711 (Ind., 1963); Ingham County Bar Ass'n v. Walter Neller & Co., 69 N.W.2d 713 (Mich., 1955); Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.E2d 855 (Mo., 1952); Cowern v. Nelson, 290 N.W. 795 (Minn., 1940); Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows Inc., et al., 377 P.2d 334, 340 (Ore., 1962); LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co., 368 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (1948); Conway-Boque Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957); Lawyers and The Realtors: Arizona's Experience, 49 ABAJ 139 (Feb. 1963); 32 N.J. 430, 161 A.2d 257, AT 264 (N.J. - 1970); Board of Immigration Appeals; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health and Human Services; Department of Justice; Department of Transportation; Department of Veteran Affairs; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs Service; The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, CHAP. XX Sec. 35, 28 U.S.C. 1654, the Sixth Amendment and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section's 1, 2, 22, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution, CrR 1.1, CrRLJ 1.1, CrR 1.3 (a) and ARLJ No. 7. See also CR 82.5 (a) & RCW 13.34.240.
1 HAVE SEVEN (7) E-MAIL ADDRESS at [rcwcodebuster (at) the following ] internet provider addresses to wit:
a.) gmail.com>
b.) yahoo.com>
c.) hotmail.com>
d.) aol.com>
e.) live.com>
f.) mail.com>
g.) comcast.net>
PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO COPY & PASTE ALL 7 OF MY E-MAIL ADDRESSES INTO YOUR CONTACTS FOLDER IF YOU DON'T WANT MY E-MAILS TO GET ROUTED STRAIGHT TO YOUR SPAM FOLDER BY YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER:
rcwcodebuster (at) gmail (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) yahoo (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) mail (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) hotmail (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) live (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) aol (dot) com, rcwcodebuster (at) comcast (dot) net
WANT TO REACH lloyd smith? – You can contact lloyd smith at (360) 289-3429 or (360) 353-4846 or E-Mail to <godspastor@gmail.com> or [godspastor (at) gmail (dot) com]
WANT TO REACH KURT RIGGIN? – You can contact Kurt Riggin at : (303) 463-4437 or E-Mail to: <kurtriggin@q.com> or [kurtriggin (at) q (dot) com]
CAVEAT WITH OPT OUT AND REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS HERE: This E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 18 U.S.C. 2521; RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b); RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 and is legally privileged and you do NOT have my "consent" for forward this e-mail to anyone. The information contained in this E-Mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or attorney or agent responsible to deliver it to the Sendee, please destroy the E-Mail after advising by reply that you erroneously received this E-Mail. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does NOT waive the lawyer or "of-counsel client privilege," nor will it constitute a waiver of the "work-product doctrine." Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030; RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 is inadmissible in court pursuant to RCW 9.73.050 and further, anyone who forwards this e-mail to anyone else without my express prior "written consent" is liable for civil monetary damages under Washington law pursuant to RCW 9.73.060 and criminal penalties under RCW 9.73.080. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and may be hazardous to your preconceptions. FREE DISTRIBUTION: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed free "only" to those specific recipients listed above who have previously expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes and have made a prior request for said information. If the reader of this message is not the intended addressee, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration, dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b)(C); RCW 9.73.050; RCW 9.73.060 and RCW 9.73.080 This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.417 SECTION101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress. REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message cannot be considered SPAM as long as it includes: 1) contact information, and 2) a way to be removed from future e-mailings. If this e-mail communication has reached you in error, or should you wish to be permanently removed from the mailing list, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL REQUESTING THAT I REMOVE YOU FROM MY E-MAIL LIST AND I WILL REMOVE YOU WITHIN 72 HOURS FROM MY RECEIPT OF YOUR E-MAIL although it may take me 4 to 5 days to catch up to your e-mail because I get so many e-mail request's for my FREE FLYERS from all over the U.S. or please return to the below listed address asking me to remove you to Luis Ewing, c/o General Delivery, (City of) Copalis Crossing, The State of Washington [98536] or call and leave a message with your E-Mail address and request to be removed at (253) 226-3741. Thank you!
__._,_.___MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
