Comment: The Thread is DEAD - Long LIVE the Thread :

(See in situ)

The Thread is DEAD - Long LIVE the Thread :

>1. "Timelessness" * * * Are you saying you would like to remove this common-law derived protection from the state? Hmmm...<

At least you understood the word to mean a motion to dismiss for lack of timely prosecution . I got clued on this from a Calif. DUI Lawyer and watched him do it . There may have been other circumstances I was unaware of . ( maybe the Judge and him swapped secret pedo ring signs and countersigns! Woooo ) I watched a couple of other Patriot “wackos” do it also on lesser matters. I have no idea if things have changed over 20 years . This is specific to my own experience in Calif. At the time . Things are different in different States .

A Cop that stops on a Traffic Matter has the discretion to to do three things, depending on circumstance and the attitudes involved . Let you go your way with with a warning, let you go on your own recognisances with a promise to appear by signing the ticket , or place you in custody “under arrest” .

DUI is a Priorable Criminal Offence and possible Felony, so you're headed for the can and can set there or obtain per-arraignment release via Bail or be released OR , depending .

In a Traffic matter, in any event, you've been “charged” by the Legal Capacity of an acting “3rd Level Civil Magistrate”. ( witness that charges are never modified before appearance ) The Speedy Trial stuff kicks in .

( I used to enjoy the weekly “Court Report” in the local papers . Old Boys charged with Speeding, DUI, Wreckless Driving and sundry, having their charges reduced to Loud Muffler . Wonder how that worked exactly ? Hahaha )

I know a lot of States have no Speedy Trial limits on Infractions or Misdomeners, but Calif. did .

In Calif. it was 30 to 45 days, depending . The Cops set the initial appearance date to fit the Docket load and their individual court day schedule . The Burbank Cops were so efficient at revenue generation “Court” was backed up 60 days or more . It was so backed up even DWIs out on Bail were often set more than 45 days out . I expect this has changed since so may DUI's were in the cue special divisions have been set up to deal exclusively with the matters .

>2. what is the authority that the court clerk, bailiff, dog catcher have to have a "performance bond" as if they are workign on building project? It's bunk.<

Here you go trailing off again . I never said the dog etc. catcher needed a Bond . You're out of your depth here Prosecutor chicken . Need to pay better attention and bone up . You'll never pass this Bond lesson plan, let alone the whole Public Recording - Subscribed Official Oath and Bond curriculum .

We were concerned with specific Officials . It's under that Bond a Municipality, or other Government Subdivision is Indemnified, and recovers against the Office Holder for any damages awarded against the Municipality or Subdivision, for the individual Officers Mis or Malfeasance against a complaining Party . Public or Private .

Fidelity Law Association Journal, Vol. XII, October 2006
The Public Officials Bond—A Statutory Obligation Requiring “Faithful Performance,” “Fidelity,” and Flexibility

I. Introduction

This article discusses the various forms of and issues relating to public officials bonds. This relatively generic term relates to bonds that are issued by the public official and the surety jointly in favor of the governmental entity that the public official serves. These bonds are commonly required by statute and create a three-party relationship more common in the context of surety bonds. Also frequently discussed in the context of public officials are public employee dishonesty coverages and similar fidelity policies. These instruments typically include the traditional two-party relationship where the insurer issues a policy or bond agreeing with the insured to indemnify the insured for certain losses arising from the dishonesty or other enumerated conduct of its employees. The distinctions in terminology and coverages are important when considering and addressing the issues that arise upon the insured or assured public entity’s loss arising from the conduct of a covered public official or employee.

II. Public Officials Bond—General A. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

A public officials bond refers to an instrument “by which a public officer and a secondary obligor undertake to pay up to a fixed sum of money if the officer does not faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office.”1 A statutory public officials bond is thus a public officials bond mandated by statute. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “official bond” as “a bond given by a public officer, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of office.”2 In the three-party surety structure, the public official is the principal, the bonding company is the surety (sometimes called the secondary obligor), and the government or, in many cases, the public being served by the official is the obligee. Statutory bond requirements are found within the individual state codes.3 They are typically interspersed throughout the code, although there is typically a “Public Officials” or “Public Office” chapter that has the general bond requirements and procedures as well as the authority for the issuance of such bonds. The requirements for the various individual officials, however, are found within the specific chapter relating to their office.4 As seen in Appendix A, there are a multitude of bonds that are either required or authorized under the various state statutes.5

In general, bonds for public officials that are required by statute
(hereinafter, “Official Bond[s]” or “Public Officials bond[s]”) are
mandatory for all elected and most public officials. This can range from the governor to local school board members. Statutes may require an Official Bond for an individual public official or may allow a blanket bond for a group of officials, such as the members of the board of directors.6 Depending on the statutory language, an Official Bond may be a “faithful performance bond,” “fidelity bond,” “public employees blanket bond,” or “public employee dishonesty policy.” While “faithful performance” bonds are by far the most common Official Bonds, the others may also be statutorily required. Each of the types of bonds listed above, whether statutory or non-statutory, are discussed herein.

>3. Citizens grand juries have no power and aren't recognized. They may also be illegal and persons calling and organizing them could be behaving illegally in many ways. You may not like those laws, but that is something which should be obvious to you.<

Deemed “Illegal” ? So I understand . Expected knee jerk response to attacks, paper and physical, by misled Jury members .

Calling a Jury like Larry Klayman, Esq. I suppose . Former prosecutor with US Dept. of Justice ? Yep, he's one to watch out for no doubt .
So called Grand Juries have been neutered for a long time . Here's some ref. for a handle on the whole situation .
CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821
Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law .
Despite its auspicious origins, the federal grand jury has become little more than a rubber stamp, indiscriminately authorizing prosecutorial decisions. At best, grand juries are passive entities whose existence burdens judicial efficiency and needlessly drains federal funds. At worst, grand juries' continued presence invidiously maintains the illusion of a community voice. This lulls corrective action and permits increased prosecutorial abuse.

The current status of state grand juries is more complex. Some states have maintained and even increased grand jury independence. Others have devolved into more passive institutions than their federal 68 counterparts. The dominant trend in both systems, however, demonstrates an historical transformation from juries that were once active and aggressive to weak and passive bodies that are utterly dependent upon prosecutors for guidance.

NOTICE to Citizens Jury Proponents : Your involvement will link you to some very unsavoury personalities and feared subject matters, know it or not . At least from the “Official” response point of view . Here's an fairly decent history concerning this and the Government's stance, not to scurrilous even, given the ADL source . Beware the claim of Posse Comitatus links.

Common Law and Uncommon Courts:
An Overview of the Common Law Court Movement

>5. The UCC doesn't give you magical powers. * * * Or take a law school class - you can audit them at some law schools. It just flat doesn't do any of hte crap the sov cit types say it does.<

UCC magical powers ? Certainly don't disagree and I never even intimated it has any authority .

Except maybe where it ties into IRS goings on under FDCPA .
Three Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Resulted in Administrative Actions
U.S. Treasury Audit Reports . Reference Number:  2003-10-138

This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.


This report presents the results of our Fiscal Year 2003 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) review.  The overall objective of this review was to obtain information on the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) administrative and civil actions resulting from violations of the FDCPA.  Section 1102(d)(1)(G) of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98) requires the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to include in one of its semiannual reports to the Congress information regarding any administrative or civil actions related to violations of the FDCPA.  The semiannual report must provide a summary of such actions and include any judgments or awards granted.

In summary, our review of 44 cases coded as potential FDCPA violations identified 3 FDCPA violations that resulted in administrative actions and were closed during January 1 through December 31, 2002.  However, there were no civil actions that resulted in the IRS paying monetary settlements to taxpayers because of an FDCPA violation.

Got my UCC introduction from Howard Freemen, then some research from the Johnathan Swift Society folks . Figured out quick it didn't apply as proffered . Specifically reference a code while expecting to defend against it's full provisions !? Go ahead and “Touch the Tar Baby”, I'll see you on the news . Language is Language friends .

Law School class ? I occasionally wonder how my life would be different had I taken Mr. Ehrenfreund's offer . Terms : Full Scholarship to Para-Legal School, get Certified . Conditions : Fail, no fault no foul. Pass and Certificate, work for him at Defenders Inc., minimum wage three years . Maybe go on with help toward JD and BAR . Heck, I might have gone back to DC as Legislative Council or Aid to a HS / Collage running buddy that pulled a tour in the House . Who knows ?

Who cares actually ? I'd rather chat with the Loyolla Marymount Prof. of Constitutional Studies about Government in Trust, only to have him consider and agree to the Thesis assertions . Particularly agreeing Webster's 1828 could be Stipulated sole authority on the meaning and application of words in Constitutional matters . Being the Common Usage and Legal language of the document and all . Very satisfying .

Or corresponding with the Anglo-American Law Clerk at the Library of Congress . Lots of info can be obtained with a few pleasantly presented questions .

Better yet Process Service on Public Officials . The look of surprise is priceless . It was a particular kick to see the “Judges” scramble out of their office holes to avoid Ron Branson and I . Word travelled the halls of “Just Us” quickly that day . They really hate on the (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law>) J.A.I.L. 4 Judges “nuisance Patriot nonsense” .

>Finally, the system is very imperfect and most attorneys acknowledge that.<

Imperfect ? It's down right corrupted . How about the Los Angeles Family Court Lawyers Association ( think it was called ) Ran their little mutual admiration society under the city's Tax Exempt EIN . Presented themselves as officially recognised body by the applicable Regulations allowing such, after proper meetings and assignment . Come to find out only 3 of the dozen or more of these organisations using that EIN was actually voted upon and approved . Sounds like ID Theft and Racketeering to me . ( come on Member, cough up your Membership and Dues Tax write-offs . Judge Berobedson, we would like you to attend our next Dinner gathering and address us on the nuances of presenting in “Your Court”. By the way, here's a little $10,000 Tax Exempt Honoraria for your time and trouble . Thanks Membership, ink-wink )

Enough on this already .

I “like” the common law ? That's a relative question . “Like” compared to what ? “Like” is a subjective emotional condition any way .

Common Law . It's what we have to work with if seeking any understanding or Equity in all this mess . It's the openly Claimed foundation of this Statutory morass . Statutes must be construed in harmony with existing Law, and it is / does when viewed through the “Common Law of Property” lens .

I'm boring you no doubt . You've got better things to do anyway . Go on back to your case load . I'm out .

Peace All

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info