The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/frogfarm.7

Text File | 1993-09-11 | 100KB | 1,718 lines

Welcome to the seventh installment of the Frog Farm. This installment
features information on the following topics:

1) Administrivia: Subscriber Information; FAQ Updated
2) Rescinding Social Security w/Marion and Roger, Part 3 of 4
3) Michigan Attorney General's opinion on education of child in parental
   home, written September 27, 1979
4) Resource List, compiled by Nombrist Beor
5) More Excerpts from the Archives


**

Administrivia

In the interest of generating actual two-way discussion, I would greatly
appreciate all subscribers sending me mail telling me as much as you feel
comfortable telling me about yourself, specifically, why you're interested
in this sort of thing. Any other detail you wish to provide is encouraged.

I will keep all messages confidential, but it will be assumed that any
information you send is intended for posting to the list unless you
specify otherwise. Any information I post to the list will be anonymous,
i.e., no names connected with the information.


 -:-

The Frog Farm FAQ has been updated as of September 1st, 1993. It is
available on the Internet from

etext.archive.umich.edu

It is accessible by anonymous FTP (in /pub/Politics/FrogFarm) or through
a Gopher server. Copies will be mailed upon request to those without FTP
or Gopher access.


**

[This is Part 3 of a 4-part posting.]

   Therefore  the status of the party must be  determined  before the court
should proceed and before the court can make an  intelligent decision. How can
status be determined if it is not pleaded?  How can it be pleaded except by
statements of fact,  and  of the  constitutional  application  and intent  of
the  particular statute in the case? The way to determine law is to plead all
the facts  in  the case in such a way as to show the  status  of  the parties,
and  therefore,  the rightful  scope  of  the  statute. "Where fundamental
rights are in question, there shall be no rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them".Miranda v Arizona.  Among  the most important rights the
people hold  are  those protected  by the Bill of Rights, but these are only a
scant  few of all the capacities, abilities and potentials of any one  human
being. The Bill of  Rights are only a statement, brief and  definite,  that
the  founders considered the Constitution  to  be  a strictly  expressed grant
of political power by the people  to  a governmental structure designed to
protect their rights first and foremost,  and  never, under any pretense, to
violate  any  right held by the people.    Perhaps the right of greatest
importance, of  greatest value to the free citizen of these United States  in
his  association with his fellow man and his government,  is  the absolute
ownership of property. From this absolute dominion, said Thomas  Jefferson,
flows all free society, and  without  it,  of course,  comes dictatorship and
oppression. If the owner  of  the property shall not have unconditional control
and use of  it--who shall?  If  the owner shall not reap the profits of  the
use  of property,  who shall? Who shall have the fruits of labor?  Should it
be the man whose right it is to labor? Who but a freeman  can claim this right?
    America was founded on this principal:  That no taking of property could
occur without just compensation. That is, if government should proceed to
demand from the citizen  some of  his wealth, it should be only in return for a
just  service, duly warranted, that was rendered to him by government.    As
the Constitutional  protections of rights is a joint  effort  between the
citizen and his government, this protection is  a  voluntary one, arising from
the consent of the individual, and he must  pay for  his  own  government,  to
whatever  extent  it  serves  him. Whereas  a corporation holds its wealth in
franchise, or  at  the grace  of government (Roger.The people) and can thereby
be  taxed on the holding or the profits of that property. However, a  natural
person has an inalienable right, to acquire and possess  all the  subjects of
property, land, goods,etc.,. a tax on an act  is regulation  of that act.    A
tax which is based on the  supposed value  of  a  property specie, is a tax on
the  holding  of  the property. While taxation to pay for constitutional
government  is a  demand on the possessions of a citizen, the just tax can
only be  for  the services rendered to that citizen according  to  his
particular status in law. To put it in general terms, the natural person  has
the least taxation upon him, while  the  corporation must  bear the most. "For
the natural person owes nothing to  the state  except  for the protection he
receives therefrom." Hale  v Henkel.   As rights of property are natural rights,
the  natural person does not owe his government the returns or benefits of his
possessions: the corporation does.    Contingent to the right  to possess in the
right to acquire. Acquiring property in a thing is often done with lawful money:
a medium of exchange for all transactions.  Without money, men would be severely
hampered in  their right  to  acquire. Fundamental rights  of  property,
therefore, include  the right to have and use a lawful medium of  exchange..
But  what if the medium has no purchasing power? What if it  will not  pay
debts? How can a man buy when he cannot pay the debt  in the transaction?
The basic question in property rights is quid pro quo, or something for
something. This is the basic  principle of  all  transactions  of the market
place,  or  between  private parties.  If  a man give nothing and receive
something,  he  has robbed  his  neighbor, and still owes him.    Money  must
convey property in something, else it is only a mutual debt. Debt is not a
satisfactory  proposition to everyone, so debt can  not  be  a medium  of
exchange. Article 1, section 10, of  the  Constitution states: "no state shall
make anyThing but gold and silver coin  a tender in payment of debt."(Roger
Sherman's addition.) The founders  intended this to be the end of the question
of  money:  Gold and silver coin. at the state level, taxation is for duly
constituted  government, process in the courts, and all other  transactions  of
the government. The protection of property  rights  are also  secured  in the
states, by guaranteeing that no  state  can enforce collection of taxes or any
discharge of debt in  anything but  gold  or  silver coin: That is, payment
with  specie  which transfers  legal title to property. This clause binds the
states down.  They  are  bound to operate at the  common  law.

(Comment Roger.  States  can make any thing they want to legal  tender  in
payment of taxes as state taxes are not debts. But the thing made a  tender for
taxes must be some material thing. States can  collect  corn  or wheat if they
want to. A person can  work  on  the roads  to pay off state taxes.A state can
issue tax receipts  for debts  it owes and then receive back the receipts for
the  taxes owed.Remember  that the individual owes nothing to the  state  so
there  is  no debt as far as the individual  is  concerned.  This section  of
the Constitution forbids the states from forcing  the citizen of the state to
accept anything but gold and silver  coin in  payment of debt. This section is
only to protect the  citizen and  his property.It has nothing to do with the
"state".but,  to switch it around--if the state accepts something other than
gold and silver coin in tender for payment of debts, then how can  the state
pay its debts? The state can declare anything they want  to to  be  a legal
tender in payment of state  taxes  because  state taxes are not debt---but in
order for the state to pay its debts, then  it  must collect gold and silver
coin.The state  can  issue negotiable  tax  receipts in payment of its debts
but  it  cannot force  you to accept them, unless you happen to be a state
"subject.")

  History is rife with examples of the  subterfuges  and resulting
oppressions and slavery from paper "money". The  founding  fathers  wished,
once and for all, to bar the  door  against this  oft-repeated debauchery of
the people's wealth.  They  knew that no surer way to destroy a nation and the
quality of life for all  its people exists that the insidious horror of paper
money, for  it  drives out the gold, and gives the power  of  government into
the hands of the few.(George Bancroft) Such,though, has been the situation in
the United States since 1933. In fact, the  door that  opened on the economics
of a totalitarianism, was with  the founding of the Federal reserve system in
1913.    The results of leaving  behind the monetary system established by the
Constitution have been disastrous, as could be expected. Jefferson warned
against  paper money and central banks. Washington considered  it crime of the
first water (order?) to allow a printing of Bills of Credit. The results have
been far reaching and insidious,  reaching  into every facet of life, and
overturning, in due  time  the very  relationship of citizens and government.
For the  overturning  of  the  monetary system from one of specie  to  one  of
irredeemable  paper has brought about the replacement  of  common law  by
custom. It is well known that the merchant  traditionally dealt   in  bills and
notes, based upon customs called  law  merchant.  He  had his own "law" because
he dealt not  in  substance (coin)  but  in  promises, or "the  potentiality
of  substance".Therefore  he  was  barred from the process of  the  common  law
courts.    Today, however, as there is no constitutional economic system,
everyone is deemed a merchant in equity, or in the custom of  merchants: This
new    status brought on by his dealing of  a mercantile  nature. What happened
to the common law? It went  out with the gold standard. Why, Congress bragged of
"suspending"  the Constitution itself in 1933 when they repudiated the gold
standard  dollar and all such obligations  in House  Joint  Resolution 192,
31  USC 463.    Is it possible that there was  a  plan,  or several plans, as
to the kind of laws which could be  promulgated upon  this "new society" where
supposedly no one operated at  the common  law  any more?    Of course it is
possible, for  HJR  192 opened  the door for infinite application of the law
merchant  at the  federal  level, and the regulatory Roman Civil  law  at  the
state  level. And with the bounds of the common law removed  from all  business
transactions, all business fell into the  class  of privilege, just as
merchants had always operated. The  incredible growth of regulatory law, taxes,
and bureaus has been based  upon the  new  "status" created by Congress in a
statement  of  policy that all persons operate under corporate capacity and,
therefore, can  be taxed and regulated as such.

(Comment Roger. HJR 192  did not  suspend  the gold standard. It said that
government  bonds, treasury bills  etc.,  would no longer be  redeemable  in
gold. Section  B  of  this resolution  says--"excepting  currency"  and
currency  includes Federal reserve notes. Most of the bonds  and bills  were
held by banks. HJR 192 stopped banks  from  redeeming bonds but it did not stop
the redemption of fed. notes. The  only purpose  authorized for fed. notes was
that they were to be  held in "reserve". For what I don't know. Title 12
Section 411 USC  is still  on  the books.)(but try to enforce it)))))!!

     And  true enough, the natural person who does not deal in banks and
credit is rare today; Almost everyone has given up the status of sovereign at
law for the "convenience" of transacting business in  credit. This is
essentially the privilege not existing at the common law: Therefore,  the
jurisdiction over these acts is one of a  commercial nature.

((Comment Roger. Here again I disagree. I can pay  my bills  with rocks if my
creditor agrees to accept them and it  is of no business to the government.When
I buy on "credit" it is  my credit that is being used. Credit is defined as the
ability of a  person  to borrow money in the community based upon  his  good
reputation.  This  would  also  apply to  my  buying  a  suit  on "credit".
The  store is depending on my reputation  (credit)  to eventually  pay for the
suit. If the store agrees to  accept  seashells for the suit that is the
business of me and the store. The problem  people get into with banks is that
it is the  bank  that gives  nothing (they allow you to use your credit) and if
you  do not give them back something they foreclose and get your property for
nothing. Giant corporations are foreclosed on and taken  over by banks when all
the corporation ever received from the bank  is a  promise to lend. Even banks
are foreclosed on.. Someone  should take  out  a big loan at a bank, get the
papers  all  signed  and everything  and then sue the bank for failure to
deliver  on  the contract. Get a thousand dollar loan from the bank. take  the
fed  notes. Then take the notes to the feds for payment.  If  the feds  refuse
then sue the bank paying the notes into  circulation for  using "devices" to
deceive, that being the definition  of  a cheat at the common law.)) Linn v
Minor 4 Nev. Rep. It matters not  to the government what a person uses to pay
their  debts.)))

But  does  this mean that there are no citizens who  can  and  do operate  at
law? This leads to the question of the  Constitution. Is  the  Constitution a
statute enacted by Congress?  Or  is  the Constitution  the people's government
and the supreme law of  the land?  If  a  statute, then it pertains to only  a
class  of persons, who, by reason that there is no lawful money today, are, in
fact, extinct.     If the Constitution be the supreme law  of the  people,  by
the people, and for the people, then it  is  the birthright  of  all  citizens
of the United  States,never  to  be repealed  or undermined by Congress. If a
birthright, then it  is recoverable at any time, for like the prodigal son, a
citizen may choose to leave behind a life of the alien and return home to the
law  of his fatherland, the Constitution.

(Comment  Roger.  These are  interesting  words  and concepts.  The  word
"alien"  means "lienable". Thus the 'alien" has no rights in America. His
rights are  "a lien able", he is a subject. Not so the Freeman.  He is not a
lien able. We establish  this  Constitution for ourselves  and our posterity.
Adolph Hitler in his  Official Programme  could have been writing the
Declaration  of  Independence.  He made a great distinction between "citizens"
and  "subjects".  "Subjects"  were "a lien able". Their  rights  could  be
taken  from them. When foreigners come here they have rights  but those  rights
are "lienable" if they do not conform to our  laws. Get  yourself a good
dictionary and look up the words  associated with   "alien".   If   you   are
an   "alien"   then   you   are "alienable"--that   is,  capable  of  being
sold,   transferred etc.,.this would be a whole field of study in itself.))))

     In this  day of economic strife and destruction, the proposition  of
changing one's economic status might be increasingly desirable to a citizen.
How is he to do this? Through the establishment of  a central bank and the
repudiation of payment of debts by Congress, the  American people were placed
upon credit of the  federal  reserve  system. As credit does not pay debts at
law,  and  because there  is no lawful money in circulation today with which to
pay debts,  the citizen is, in fact, an insolvent upon  bank  credit, using
credit to transact business.

 ((Comment Comment. It is  not the  banks credit being used!! They borrow money
on the  credit of  the United States i.e. the people. It is the people's
credit that  is  being used.We are only led to believe that it  is  bank credit.
Whose  credit (reputation)   is being used when you buy  a suit  and  promise to
pay for it later? It is the credit  of  the people.I  will admit that nothing
ever gets paid for as  you  can only  pay a debt with money or goods. When you
enter into a  contract with a merchant for a suit of clothes, he actually
delivers the  clothes.  He is the one that never gets paid. When  you  use
your credit to buy a suit, the merchant has fulfilled his part of the  bargain.
He has delivered the goods. Now it is up to  you  to deliver  the money. and if
he is willing to accept notes as  payment  then  he has for all purposes, been
paid. No one  can  step between you and the merchant and say that he was not
paid. I  can hand  you a blank piece of paper for a debt and if you accept  it
as  payment then no one can step  in between us and say that  the contract  was
not completed. The Constitution guarantees  us  the right  to contract. If we,
by mutual consent, want to  alter  the contract,  i.e.notes instead of dollars,
then that is our  constitutionally guaranteed right. But no one can force us to
alter the  contract!!!!!!!!!!! The fed note is a contract  between  you and the
feds. No state can impair the obligation of that contract without your consent.)

Not even the federal reserve note  can pay a debt,for it is legal "tender for"
debts" and not "in payment of"   debts.

    (Comment  Roger.  Legal  tender  for  all   debts means that  it is legal-
(I cannot be prosecuted  for  "offering" the note)--for me to tender (offer)
you the note "for" "in  place of" the debt. The debt being gold and silver
coin.If I owe you  a dollar,a  dollar being a coin weighing 412.5 grains  of
standard silver  and being 1/500 th inches in diameter, then it  is  legal
(you  cannot  bring charges against me for offering)  for  me  to tender
(offer) you a note marked "one dollar." This does not  say that you have to
accept the note. Only that it is legal for me to offer it and if you accept it
then my obligation to you is  paid. or  rather you have given up your right to
be paid  by  accepting the  note. If I owed you a horse and I offered you a
cow and  you accepted the cow then you have given up your right to collect the
horse.)
       (Comment Roger:4 Nev. Rep. Linn v Minor.  Nothing is  clearer than that
the right to discharge a debt in  notes  is simply  a privilege given to the
individual---it is a matter  of indifference  to the government (the government
is the  constitution)  whether  individual debts be paid in one currency  or
the other---the privilege may be waived by the individual at  any time. Broom's
Maxims, 624 to 630))

    The acts of Congress cannot violate  the  Constitution,and  the fact is
that  Congress   has attempted  to  overthrow the Bill of Rights and  negate
property rights of every American by removing from the people their sovereign
medium  of exchange mandated by the  Constitution  itself.

(Comment  Roger. I remember reading somewhere that common law  is determined by
custom and usage over a period of years. I  believe it is seventy years. If so,
then fed. notes would be part of  the common  law because of "custom and usage"
but of course if  we have been deceived through constructive fraud and false
information  or no information????))

    The Congress, on June  5,  1933, bragged  of "suspending the Constitution"
itself  by  repudiating payment  of  debts.  This act, in conjunction with
acts  of  the President,  deluded the people into giving up their gold coin  in
exchange  for paper intended to be irredeemable thereafter. As  a Congressman
of the day remarked, these acts had for their  design the  establishment of a
new form of government.    By creating  a new status of insolvency nationwide,
the Congress opened wide the door for a new system of law, regulatory,
commercial law  promulgated by ministerial agencies, bureaus, and magistrate
courts  at both  federal and state levels. For all persons of the  insolvent
class,  or  in  other words, all those  dealing  totally  without lawful  money
in their business affairs, there is a body of  customs  and usages termed law
merchant, or mercantile equity,  long used by merchants since the 13th century
to expedite disputes  in commercial contracts. The custom  of merchants is
largely enacted under the terms and principles of the civil law in the states
by the legislatures.    How does this affect the status of a citizen in the
courts? Due to the economic situation, it is assumed  that all persons operate
on credit and that the common law is  nowhere applicable.  All  are  assumed to
be "merchants  in  equity"  and thereby governed by the "general commercial
law.".    This brings us  to the Erie R.R. v Tompkins case of 1938. It was  a
landmark case  because it overturned the 96 year old doctrine of  Swift  v
Tyson.

 (Comment Roger. But it did not overrule Article Seven  of the  Constitution.
What cannot be done directly cannot  be  done indirectly.  if  the courts can
make law then we do  not  need  a Congress.  The second part of the Seventh
amendment says that  if any  matter has been tried by a jury and it is brought
up  again then it must be tried by a jury. If you are having a problem then see
whether this matter has ever been tried by a jury.Has  there ever  been a jury
decision as to what is a "dollar?" If a  "dollar"  is  described as a "coin
1/500th inches  in  diameter",  no matter  what its contents, then someone
somewhere should be  able to  get  a  jury  trial to determine  how  big  a
dollar  is.)

Stated in Erie, "there is no general federal  common law,"  Meaning  that there
is no base of common law generic to  the  states. This decision  was a direct
ratification of HJR 192, passed five years earlier,  and affects a  repudiation
of the basic principle of the Constitution (comment.Then  it  is
unconstitutional and  the  judges  violated their oaths of office and are
usurpers and misusers of the corporate franchise), that the people as one
created for themselves as Americans  a  general law and a supreme law, binding
upon  every government official in the United States, both state and federal.
It is the birthright of every natural person who is a sovereign  of these
United States...never to be abrogated, repudiated,  diminished, or "suspended"
by the governmental offices it created,  or by any other office created under
"commercial law."

 (Comment  Roger. I do not mean to argue with the writer  of  this article.  I
hope I am bringing up valid points and  causing  the reader to think. The term
"credit" means simply "reputation."  We somehow think that when we buy "on
credit" that the person  selling  is  "extending" credit. Now how in the name
of all  that  is holy, does one "extend credit." If we could "extend credit"
then there would be no need for jails, now would there? When one  buys a  suit
from a store, the owner "extends" the time for which  you must  pay for the
suit. He does not "extend" credit.  He  extends the time limit for you to pay
for the suit based upon your credit "reputation". I have a car bought on time.
It was bought on  time because  the  seller believed that I had good "credit".
If  I "tender"  the seller federal reserve notes for "payment"  of  the car
and  he  agrees to accept the notes as  "payment",  then  my obligation  to
"pay" with "money" or "goods" is discharged.  This is the contract that I have
with the seller. The contract is  for "dollars"  but  if  the buyer and the
seller want  to  alter  the contract  and pay with notes, that is their
business and  no  one else's.  Banks violate the Truth in Lending Laws every
time  they advertise  to  "extend" credit.It is not the banks  credit  being
used.  It  is the customers. If it is the banks credit  then  why does the bank
call the Credit Bureau to see how good your  credit is?  If  I have a "credit"
card than that is  evidence  that  the issuing  party believes that my "credit"
is good and that I  will eventually "pay" for any purchases that I make using
the "credit" card.  If I were to buy a suit using a visa card, all I am  doing
is  "extending"  the "time" it takes for me to come up  with  the "cash".  The
bank agrees to pay the store with "dollars". If  the store  is willing to accept
bank notes or bookkeeping entries  in payment  of the suit, that is o.k. with me
as the store  and  the bank also have the right to contract.When it comes time
for me to pay  the bank for the suit, I have the right to give back to  the
bank  the  same thing that I received. The bank doesn't  seem  to want  the
suit but they will accept federal reserve notes  if  I tender  (offer)  them.
The contract all the way  around  was  for "dollars." We all know that without
delivery of the  "substance", the  contract is incomplete. But if both parties
agree  to  an alteration  of  the contract, that is nobody's business  but  the
contracting parties. If I enter into a contract with you  whereas I will deliver
to you a quart of milk and in return you will give me a quart of orange juice,
and you do not have the orange  juice but  you  do have grapefruit juice, and
you  offer  (tender)  the grapefruit juice to me for (in place of) the orange
juice  and  I agree  to  accept,  your obligation to deliver  orange  juice  is
discharged. We have mutually altered the contents of the contract and  it is
nobody's business under our constitutionally  guaranteed right to contract.
When a person takes out a bank "loan",  I  will  be the first to agree that the
bank  gives  up nothing of value--but that is no business of mine. I got the
suit and the store got the bank bookkeeping entries.I am the only  one to
really  get "paid".The bank and the store do not  get  "paid" anything of value
but I got the suit. The bank does the bookkeeping.  I  use  my  own "credit" and
the  bank  keeps  the  records straight.  No matter that they are false
bookkeeping  entries.If the store is stupid enough to admit to having been
"paid" by  the bank  that  is none of my business.  If the bank  is  willing  to
accept  its  own notes as "payment", fine, I have  delivered  the same thing
that was received, and since we all agreed that everything  was  "paid",  that
is  our  right  under  the  right   to contract.If I have a contract to deliver
orange juice to you  for a valuable consideration, the state cannot come in and
say that I have to deliver something else.If the contract is for dollars the
state  cannot come in and say that I have to tender  Fed.  notes. But  if  I
agree with the contracting party to  accept  something other  than  dollars
that is none of the  states  business.  The "impairing of the obligation of
contracts" has nothing to do with me  and you. If I give you Fed. notes and you
give me  a  receipt marked "paid" then damn it you have been "paid".Forget this
thing that notes do not "pay" a debt. I can "pay"  a debt with anything I  want
to as long as you are willing to accept  that  thing  as "payment".  "In the
absence of an agreement, notes do not  operate as  payment".  Now put it the
other way around. If  there  is  an agreement  then  notes do operate as
payment.Remember,  the  bank does not lend their credit. They allow you to use
your own credit and  they do the bookkeeping and charge you a fee for  doing
so. They want you to think that they are lending you their credit  so that  you
will say what nice boys they are.Never mind  what  the medium  of  payment  is,
it is eventually  your  time, labor  and "money"  that you spent in acquiring
the property that  gives  you the  right to ownership."The time,labor and money
that  a  person spends  on  his property amounts to a common law lien.".  If
you have  a  piece of property with a brook running  through  it  and bushes'
(I don't mean George) on both sides of it, and if I, in full  view of you, go
in and cut back the bushes' and you do  not say a word, then I have a lien on
your property amounting to  the increased  value in your property as a result
of my cutting  back the  brush.If "you" cut back the brush and increase the
value  of the land, then you have a common law lien.    I bought a house in
1971.  My interest in the house at that time was not  the  dollar amount of Fed
notes that I paid down but the time and labor  that I  spent  in obtaining those
notes. It is funny  that  today  the value  of  the  house equals just about the
amount  of  the  down payment  plus  the interest and taxes paid. If  the  bank
should foreclose  today,  all  they would be entitled to  would  be  the unpaid
part of the mortgage. I  would be entitled to recover  all taxes  paid,  all
interest paid, all principal  paid,  plus  any improvements  that I have made.
If I could find a buyer.But  putting a chrome muffler on a 1960 Chevrolet
doesn't change the fact that  it is still a 1960 Chevrolet.  Farmers being
foreclosed  on today  should  be countersuing the banks for the time  and  labor
they  spent on keeping the property from growing up in  weeds  or trees.Anyway,
it isn't the notes that give value to anything,  it is  the time and labor
involved in getting them. And banks  don't spend  much  time and labor in
obtaining them. The only  cost  to them in letting you use your own credit is
the cost of  bookkeeping.  By  your use of your own credit you are actually
the  only ones  getting "paid." You do obtain some material thing. All  the
store and bank get are notes and bookkeeping entries. We just let them  fool us
into thinking that they have money or  "credit.")

[end part 3 of 4]


**

[This is the most recent information I have regarding "home schooling". The
subject is an excellent one for the seasoned pro se litigant who has already
gotten their feet wet with traffic cases and such, and covers a broad range of
subject matter including the 1st and 5th Amendments. If anyone has more recent
information on the subject, you are encouraged to share it -- I'm sure you'll
be able to tell that the AG was operating on mostly false premises, and it
might make a useful and/or fun exercise to write up a sample brief refuting
his position. Note also that none of the cases mentioned were fought on the
crucial issues, or even on subsidiary issues that might have been raised, and
all dance around the question of who really has dominion over the children --
the parents or the State.]


                              STATE OF MICHIGAN
                      FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Education of child in parental home

A parent may not provide for the education of his or her child in the parental
home unless a certificated teacher is present to provide instruction
comparable to that provided in the public school district.

Opinion No. 5579

September 27, 1979

Honorable Kerry Kammer
State Senator
The Capitol
Lansing, MI

         You have requested my opinion whether a parent may provide for his or
her child's education at home without having a certificated teacher present.

    In 1976 PA 451, sec 1561, MCLA 390.1561; MSA 15.41561, the legislature has
provided:

          "(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), every
           parent, guardian or other person in this state having
           control and charge of a child from the age of 6 to the
           child's sixteenth birthday, shall send that child to the
           public schools during the entire school year. . . .

                                  * * *

          "(3) A child shall not be required to attend the public
           schools in the following cases:

              (a) A child who is attending regularly and is
              being taught in a state approved nonpublic
              school, which teaches subjects comparable to
              those taught in the public schools to children
              of corresponding age and grade, as determined
              by the course of study for the public schools
              of the district within which the nonpublic
              school is located."

         The legislature has provided for supervision of nonpublic schools in
1921 PA 302, MCLA 388.551 et seq; MSA 15.1921 et seq. That supervision
includes teachers, courses of study and sanitary conditions.

         In a letter opinion of the Attorney General to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction on May 18, 1961, the question of whether a child could be
educated at home by a certificated teacher was addressed. That opinion was
based upon 1955 PA 269, sec 731 and 732, which have been superseded by
substantially similar language in 1976 PA 451, sec 1561, supra, and upon 1921
PA 302, supra. That opinion, at pages 2 through 5, accurately states the
present law. It reads as follows:

          "The authority of the legislature to require parents to
           furnish education to their children is well settled.
           Meyer v. Nebraska, 67 L.Ed. 1042. However, the legislature
           has no right to compel parents to accept educational
           instruction from public teachers only. Pierce v. The
           Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and
           Mary, 69 L.Ed. 1070.

          "Research of pertinent Michigan supreme court decisions
           fails to reveal any precedent in Michigan which would
           define the words 'private school' as used in section
           732(a), supra.

          "An examination of precedents in other jurisdiction
           reveals two lines of authority.

          "The supreme court of the state of Illinois has
           considered the same question in People v. Levisen,
           90 NE 2d 213, 14 ALR 2d 1364, where the respondent
           was convicted of violating a comparable compulsory
           education statute. The defense was made that the
           child was receiving private tutoring at home. The
           facts were that the child, a third grade student,
           was receiving five hours of instruction at home in
           comparable courses, the instruction being given by
           her mother, who had two years of college work and
           some training in educational psychology. Further,
           the child showed the academic proficiency of the
           average third grade student. It should be observed
           that the tutor in this case did not possess a
           teaching certificate. The Illinois court defined a
           school as a place where instruction is bestowed
           upon the young. The number of children being taught
           does not determine whether the place is a school,
           so that the respondent was, in fact, providing an
           education in a private school for her child in her
           home, in lieu of attendance at the public school.
           But the court pointed out that the parents have a
           burden of showing that they have in good faith
           provided an adequate course of instruction in the
           prescribed branches of learning. Finally, the court
           held that the compulsory education statute was not
           enacted to punish those who provided their children
           with instruction which is equal or superior to that
           which may be obtained in the public schools.

          "To the same effect is the decision of the Indiana
           supreme court in State v. Peterman, 70 NE 550, and
           the decision of the Oklahoma supreme court in Wright
           v. State, 209 P 179.

          "The leading case which holds that the tutoring of the
           child at home even when it is rendered by qualified
           teaching personnel does not satisfy the compulsory
           education statute is State v. Counort (Wash), 124 P
           910, where the respondent was convicted of failing to
           send his children to a public or an approved private
           school. Respondent claimed that he was a qualified
           teacher and was, in fact, providing instruction to his
           children. The Washington court held that the nature of
           the private school is to be determined by the purpose,
           intent and character of the endeavor of providing
           instruction, so that the act of giving instruction to a
           child at home did not constitute attendance at an
           approved private school. It should be observed in
           Counort, supra, that the facts were undisputed that the
           children were seen playing around the house rather than
           receiving instruction.

          "To like effect is the decision of the New Hampshire
           supreme court in State v. Hoyt, 146 A 170, where the
           respondent was convicted of failing to cause his child to
           attend public schools. The defense was made that the
           child was being tutored at home. The court held that such
           a program did not constitute attendance at a school in
           that the equivalency of the education could not be
           reasonably ascertained for it imposed an unreasonable
           burden of supervision upon the state.

          "The weight of the decision in Counort, supra, as a
           precedent is diminished by the recent decision of the
           Washington supreme court in State v. Superior Court, 346
           P 2d 999, where the attendance of a child at a public or
           private school was sought to be required, even though
           the parents of the child were providing an education
           through instruction given by the mother. In a divided
           decision, the majority of the court held that the three
           elements of a school are the teacher, the pupil or pupils,
           and the place. While the parents had provided the place
           and the pupil, the parents failed to supply the teacher,
           in that instruction was given by the mother who was not
           qualified to teach in the state of Washington. Thus, the
           alleged private school would not qualify to satisfy the
           compulsory education statute. The import of this decision
           is inescapable that had the parents provided a certified
           or licensed teacher under Washington law, the instruction
           that was being given the child at home would have
           constituted attendance at a private school.

          "The purposes of the Michigan compulsory education statute
           are plain. Parents are required to provide an education
           for their children...

          "Where the parent or parents are properly certificated as
           teachers by the state of Michigan or provide a tutor
           possessed of a certificate from the state of Michigan to
           educate their child or children in courses that are
           comparable to the education received in the public school,
           it would appear that the parents are fulfilling the
           obligation imposed by law of educating their children.

          "Under the decision in Levisen, supra, Peterman, supra,
           Wright, supra, and even in the recent Washington supreme
           court in State v. Superior Court, supra, the tests of the
           definition of a private school are met when a properly
           certificated teacher is providing comparable education
           courses to a pupil at a place, which may be the home of
           the parents of the child.

          "Nor is the reasoning of Hoyt, supra, necessarily
           determinative of another conclusion. The legislature has
           empowered the superintendent of public instruction,
           pursuant to the provisions contained in Act 302, PA 1921,
           as amended, to supervise private, denominational and
           parochial schools and to that end has expressly authorized
           the state's chief educational officer to determine that
           the teachers in private, denominational or parochial
           schools are properly certificated under section 1 of the
           act, and to determine that the courses of study are of
           the same standard as provided in the public schools under
           section 3 of the act. In addition, the superintendent of
           public instruction is authorized to determine that the
           sanitary conditions of private schools are of the same
           standard as provided in the general school laws of the
           state under section 1 of the act.

                                    * * *

          "Where a private school employs a properly certificated
           teacher or teachers, offers courses of study which are of
           the same standard as provided in public schools, and
           observes sanitary conditions comparable to the public
           schools, the superintendent of public instruction is
           without authority to close such a private school.

          "Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that
           a parent who holds a Michigan teacher's certificate and
           provides comparable educational instruction to his child or
           children in his home or employs a legally qualified tutor
           who provides comparable instruction to his child or children
           in his home and meets the sanitary conditions of the same
           standard as in the public schools, is complying with section
           731 of the School Code of 1955, in that he is providing an
           education for his child or children at a private school."



         In view of the foregoing, the conclusion is compelled that a private
school must utilize certificated teachers. Thus, it is my opinion that a
parent may not provide for his or her child's education at home without having
a certificated teacher providing instruction in courses comparable to those
offered in the public school district in which the child resides.

/s/ Frank J. Kelley
Frank J. Kelley
Attorney General

**

[This is a list of people and organizations that are devoted to topics of a
Froggish nature, put together by Nombrist Beor ([e-mail]).
Inclusion or exclusion of any person or organization on this list is not to be
construed as any sort of judgment on the competency or trustworthiness of that
person or organization.]


---- Resources

Okay, I'm going to start off with resources I can strongly recommend from
personal experience or relationships with someone with a good experience and
then branch out into whatever I have left for resources, which often amounts
to not much more than names and numbers.

A warning: You may find, upon examination of the "patriot movement" (as they
like to refer to themselves), genuinely valuable insights on questions of
monetary policy and law, and at the same time, false and outrageous views
regarding Jews, blacks, homosexuals or other generally disliked groups. This
is a consistent pattern in American populism going back at least as far as
Father Coughlin, who exhibits a striking metamorphosis over the course of
his career from a primary concern with social justice and monetary reform to
a blatant anti-Jewish stance. I think it is important for all those
concerned with this question to explore, analyze, and attempt to understand
this dynamic, lest monetary reformers and sovereign defenders of rights be
tarred for all time by a continued association with the spectre of blind,
unreasoning hatred. Patriots for Liberty explicitly states that they do not
(as a group) condone such attacks, even though the same wackos I just
mentioned all showed up in droves and PFL itself associates strongly with
the John Birch Society. Another common direction is that many of these
groups are highly religious. In any respect, deal with it; they have
valuable information even if their prejudices drive you up the wall.

Also, several monetary units below will be specified in Federal Reserve
Notes (FRN's). What are these? Take one of those green pieces of paper out
of your pocket. Look at the top line on the front. Okay, if you begin to
wonder why I'm not using the international monetary symbol for currency,
look up the word "Note" in Bouvier's or some other law dictionary. It may
give you some clue what is going on, but if you don't care, just bear with
me for a while.

If you have Internet access, the mailing list for discussion of these issues
is handled by [e-mail] -- send all inquiries to there.

Relevant articles and an FAQ (Frequently Asked-for Quotes) can be had from
etext.archive.umich.edu: /pub/Politics/FrogFarm (why on earth he classifies it
under politics when it obviously has nothing to do with politics is beyond me.
Several things he sent me were also political in nature and I carefully
extracted most of them). [Moderator's Note: This site can also be accessed as
a Gopher server.]

If you need to contact me, Nombrist Beor, personally for some reason (hate
mail, kudos, questions, or otherwise), my address is

[e-mail]


George Gordon's School of Common Law
P.O. Box 297
Isabella, MO
65676
1-417-273-4967 or 417-273-4772
(every day except Sundays sundown to sundown)

George has been defending his rights in court for almost twelve years now. A
small businessman who taught himself to fight back when Big Brother put him
out of business, he founded Barrister's Inne School of Common Law in Boise,
Idaho with Roger Elvick. As a result, the city of Boise stopped pulling over
automobiles without license plates; it was getting too expensive to
prosecute cases they almost always lost. In his original 1982 videotaped
lessons, George said that many people told him that he wasn't long for this
world. But here it is, eleven years later, and he's still succeeding! His
classes cost one (1) ounce of gold per week, with gold at 500.00 FRN's per
ounce. Write or call for a catalog of books and list of classes. Good stuff:
Scott McGee's "Do You Speak Credit?", 14 pp., 1 silver dollar or 6 FRN's;
Walter M. Froengen's "Legal Quotes 1", 88 pp., 2 silver dollars or 12 FRN's;
Paul Conley's "Zoning and the Property Owner", 104 pp., 6 silver dollars or
33 FRN's; "Trial Preparation", 177 pp., 6 silver dollars or 33 FRN's; and
James C. Cissell's "Proving Federal Crimes", 252 pp., 6 silver dollars or 33
FRN's. Level of Religiousness: Reasonable; explicitly ties into legal
defenses in some areas.

Note on Gordon himself: This guy is amazing. He follows ALL 759 laws of
Moses to the letter and runs a farm where he teaches his school. He is
extremely articulate and hopefully he got over his previous problems. If you
do have a talk with him, ask him about Gordon vs. State, 108 Idaho 178, 697
P.2d 1192; State vs. Von Schmidt, 109 Idaho 736; and State vs. Gibson, 108
Idaho 202, 697 P.2d 1216. These are all cases which appear to involve Mr.
Gordon and his school and I am interested in what the outcome was and how he
managed to avoid problems like what happened in those cases later on (and he
obviously has).

Don't worry about Roger Elvick much, except perhaps sending him a letter if
you get into the mood for it. He's a prisoner of war, currently being held
captive by the federal government for fighting their unlawful dictatorship.
His own Nitty Gritty School of Common Law was even better than George
Gordon's school, but he is pretty much permanently out of it now.


Bruce G. McCarthy
HC-62, Box 375
Smithville, OK
74957

The author of "MSO: Key To Ownership", an excellent example of tacit
procuration against administrative agencies, dealing with vehicle license
plates and registration. Send $0.50 in pre-1965 U.S. silver coin, or 5.00 in
postage stamps, for the two booklets "The Pernicious Treadmill of Credit"
and "Theocratic v. Democratic Money". Level of Religiousness: Somewhat more
pervasive than George Gordon, but still quite reasonable overall. If nothing
else, get the book anyways for humor value.


National Commodity and Barter Association
8000 E. Girard Ave., Suite 215-S
Denver, CO 80231

First year membership is 280 FRN's. With it, they send you all their
research as a giant multi-volume "encyclopaedia" set. They also have
extensive legal services and have been actively creating the precedents in
the area of income tax that most of the other people mentioned here are
using. They obviously also offer banking and barter services. If you can
afford it, I would give Barrister's Inne, NCBA, and FES my personal approval
as the best that money can buy.


Freeman Education Association
8141 East 31st St., Suite F
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145

Don't know much about them, other than their newsletter has some pretty good
research in it.


Free Enterprise Society
300 West Shaw Ave., Suite 205
Clovis, CA 93612

These guys are sort of like the "Loompanics" of law. Lots of neat nifty
books in their catalog. They also offer private banking services (your money
does not devaluate continuously when deposited with them, unlike regular
banks), services for getting out of driver's licenses, and several other
legal aid services as well as classes and seminars. The catalog is free and
also includes several articles of use in each one; it doubles as their
newsletter. Essentially, these guys are a cheap NCBA.


Our Ageless Constitution
PO Box 2909
Asheboro, NC 27204
919-626-2176

They offer bound editions of the constitution along with a big
interpretative section of some sort. I have not seen the actual goods, so I
decline to comment further.


NTP Newsletter
c/o Otto Skinner
PO Box 6509
San Pedro, CA 90734
213-515-3369

Otto offers _The Best Kept Secret: Taxpayer vs. Non-Taxpayer_ and _If You
Are the Defendent_ and a bi-monthly newsletter entitled _Nontaxpayers
United_.


National Citizen Education
9205 S.E. Clackamas Road, Suite 435
Clackamas, OR 97015

They have a book called _Financial Survival_ discussing the Federal Reserve,
banking, money, income taxes, deciphering IRS Code, the "coming currency
switch", and other topics.


Irwin Schiff
60 Skiff St., Suite 300
Hamden, Conn., 06517

He wrote a book entitled _The Federal Mafia -- How it illegally imposes and
Unlawfully Collects Income Tax_. He also has several other publications of a
similar nature.


Cornerstones of Freedom
PO Box 29265, Dept. T-1-D
Honolulu, Hawaii 96820

They have collected opinion letters from noted tax attorneys, CPA's, tax
experts, and language experts who have all stated numerous legal reasons why
you can't be required to liable to file or pay income tax. They offer it as
supporting documentation if you want to disclaim "willful" failure to file,
as in the recent Cheek vs. US case.


The Upright Ostrich
PO Box 11691
Milwaukee, WI 53211

Another newsletter that I have heard extremely high recommendations for,
although I have not personally seen it. Put out by Ron Paul, former
Libertarian presidential candidate.


PEGS Bookstore
PO Box 9337
Missoula, Montana 69807

Jeffrey Dickstein is an excellent tax lawyer and they carry his books,
including _Judicial Tyranny and the Income Tax_ which analyzes every
pertinent court case to date dealing with income tax.


Citizen's Bar Assocation
PO Box 935
Medford, OR 97051
503-779-0950

These guys do some excellent research. Some of their work is actually
used in the articles I have written.


Remnant Church Library
4015 Clinton Ave.
Klamath Falls, OR
97603
1-503-883-8243

Their videotapes are rather expensive, but are real meat and potatoes
hardcore detail on law. Level of Religiousness: Very explicit, but not
overbearing; very friendly folks, a father-and-son team.


Vic Lockman
Box 1916
Ramona, CA
92065

Produces cute comic booklets that at first glance look like Jack Chick
comics. However, instead of cheap and stupid moralizing, Vic writes very
easily comprehensible explanations of many of the legal difficulties facing
those who wish to exercise Rights. Good stuff includes "Money, Banking and
Usury", for 3.95 FRN's. For 8.00 FRN's, you can get 50 copies of his 11-page
"Social Security: A Crumbling Fraud", which you can randomly distribute to
the sheeple and maybe educate a few of them. Certainly more productive than
those ridiculous Chick comics. Level of Religiousness: About the same as
Gordon.


Laissez Faire Books
942 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA
94103
1-800-326-0996

Widest available selection of libertarian, history, philosophy, economic and
Randian books, audio and video tapes; publishes regular informative catalog
with book reviews. Good stuff: Frederic Bastiat's "The Law", "The Lysander
Spooner Reader", Randy E. Barnett's "The Rights Retained by the People",
Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy the State", Adam Cash's "Guerilla Capitalism:
How to Practice Enterprise in an Unfree Economy" and "How to Do Business
'Off the Books'" and Grace Llewellyn's "The Teenage Liberation Handbook".

Recommendation: Snag _The Law_ from the networks and at least read that. If
you are a bleeding heart liberal and managed to understand what you are
reading after that, I pity you for being so stupid. Give copies to all your
liberal friends, too, so you can at least carry on reasonable conversation
with them.


International Society for Individual Liberty
1800 Market St.
San Francisco, CA
94102

Publishes "Freedom Network News", a compilation of worldwide events relating
to (what else) freedom. Excellent tool for networking with people all over
the globe (pen pals in foreign countries are great!).


Michigan Bar Association (Common Law)
28600 Gratiot Ave.
Roseville, MI 48066

They have a study group? that meets every Wednesday evening at 7pm at the
above location. I still have NO information about them, but if I knew
anything about them, I might show up even though it's a 4 hour drive (more
or less) for me.


Justice Times
PO Box 163
Upland, CA 91785

This is a pretty decent magazine in large newspaper format with lots of
decent references and current news of interest. For those of you who listen
to Rush Limbaugh or Chuck Harder, one of the regular writers for the Justice
Times is none other than Oliver North.


Patriots for Liberty
Box 334
Rochester, IN 46975

This is the group I mentioned that is using the administrative remedy and a
letter-response method that I mentioned earlier with a 100% success rate in
dealing with the IRS. They ask for donations (say 5-10 FRNs for a year or
so) to cover their printing costs on their newsletter, which comes out about
4-5 times a year, but irregularly. The newsletter is constantly FULL of new
information and additional references and contacts. I highly recommend their
newsletter if for no other reason than that.

--

**

[Here are some more "best of the best" of the Frog Farm archives.]


   90Oct12 5:53 pm from Frog Farmer @ Garbanzo
Random Entry @ DogLink>> Frog Farmer: What rights are we asserting
 here?<<

      I was tempted to say the First Amendment rights to freedom of
 peaceful assembly and free speech, but since we are on a privately
 owned system, we're exercising a PRIVILEGE, which could be withdrawn
 at any moment!  So, I guess we're not exercising ANY rights HERE, but
 we are discussing the possibility of exercising ANY AND ALL of our
 INALIENABLE RIGHTS secured and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and
 our State Constitutions.  It has been said that our rights are
 innumerable, so any possible listing would be incomplete.  That's why
 our Constitution granted the government SPECIFIC powers, and withheld
 those that were not specifically granted.
      We are also discussing the unknowing waiver of our rights, which
 many persons have been either tricked or beguiled into doing, for
 reasons of convenience or expedience.  I personally like to
 concentrate on the rights to travel and possess property, since those
 are two of the rights that government likes to get us to waive, in
 order to have more control over us.  And we should pay more attention
 to the right that ALL our rights hang upon, the right to keep and bear
 arms, without which all of our other rights are unenforceable.

 Steve S.>>  Once we had an English-Christian legal system. Now we have
 a Roman one. There were historical outcomes to those two systems.<<

      The Roman one we have today is a usurpation, and violates all the
 Constitutions, but it remains "legal" (although "unlawful") so long as
 the people put up with it.  It has no jurisdiction over one who
 objects timely to it, as many people have proven in their own cases in
 the courts.  The problem is that your win or my win changes nothing
 for the rest of the "sheeple".  Each ,man has to be the protector of
 his own freedom.  And lemmings in their rush to follow the others over
 the cliff into the sea just don't act as individuals as a rule...

Steve S.>> One important point that we need to consider is what the
 actual court cases show will happen in various jurisdictions.<<

     That's why I try to use the court's own decisions in formulating
 my position.  Despite popular belief, they tend to be pretty
 consistent.  Remember, cases that are dismissed are never reported,
 and neither are cases that would lead others to copy a successful pro
 se litigant.

 Steve S.>> It is valuable and `nice' to discuss what ought in our
 opinions to be, and what technically are the laws, but if we act on
 these things, will we not spend time in prison? or fines, or paying
 lots of legal costs? We need to have an understanding of these things,
 too.<<

      There's a difference between "what we think ought to be" and the
 actual LAWS that have power over us.  I'd rather pay attention to the
 laws, that can put me behind bars if I violate them, than to worry
 about "what should be".  The thing is, few people look to see what the
 law actually says, and MANY times it is different than commonly
 "believed".  You ask about prison, fines, and legal costs. Let's take
 those in different order.  You can avoid outrageous legal costs by
 doing your own work, and avoiding attorneys, who often have a conflict
 of interest anyway, since they are officers of the court, and whose
 livings depend upon your continued misfortune.  Fines must be paid in
 the money of account of the US, and if you are willing to waive that
 important issue, I guess you can "pay" all the fines you'd like, but
 no court has yet been able to get me to pay any fines in dollars of
 the money of account - the reason being that there is no longer any
 such thing "currently circulated".  And prisons - yes, the prisons are
 full of political prisoners.  I figure that if they can prosecute me,
 and avoid losing after all my appeals on up to the Supreme Court (and
 I make it a point to qualify all my cases for the Supreme Court from
 the moment of first contact with the government), then I won't mind
 sitting out a few rounds, teaching other inmates how they've been
 defrauded.  Believe me, they don't want experienced pro se litigants
 in jail or prison.  It is not cost effective.  A good pro se would
 spend each and every day costing them more than it is worth, with
 appeal after appeal, teaching others, initiating civil rights suits,
 etc, etc.  But the main thing is that we are NOT advocating breaking
 any laws - we are advocating that citizens hold their public servants
 to the law that they have sworn to uphold.
      I don't think its a good idea to act upon any information you
 encounter here until YOU have thoroughly checked it out on your own,
 and YOU have educated yourself in the subject matter that you wish to
 test.  A BBS post is such a small bit of information.  Believe me,
 I've got so much information on these subjects I could never post it
 all, but I CAN direct the serious student to where HE/SHE can find the
 same voluminous information.  After all, all law is public record, is
 it not?  The thing is, many people want everything dished out for them
 on a platter, free of any cost to them.  It can't work that way with
 this stuff.  In the "information age", all information has a price,
 either in your own time spent gleaning it, or in compensation to those
 who have gone ahead of you and are making their work available to you.

   90Oct14 12:32 am from Frog Farmer @ Interface
To Steve S. in particular:
      Just to put it in perspective, in one of my cases where I was
 charged with driving without a license, registration, or insurance, I
 entered into the record at the last moment a motion for dismissal,
 listing about 25 reasons "why" I didn't need the documents.  The
 motion was only ten pages long, with about 25 pages of photocopied
 exhibits, consisting of law excerpts.  After reading it, the judge
 asked me if I would mind it if he read it to the audience in the
 courtroom.  I replied "Of course not, go ahead", and he read it to the
 assembled audience.  Then he asked the prosecutor to respond, but all
 the prosecutor could do was look stupid with his mouth hanging open.
 The judge then dismissed the case against me.  No record for
 posterity, just another free man.  There were 23 local policemen in
 that room, waiting to be called on their cases.  All of them got a
 good look at me, and then there were 23 local cops who knew enough NOT
 to bust me for that particular offense.  But the interesting thing is
 that there were 6 other defendents, some with hired lawyers, and some
 with public defenders, who were charged with the exact same offenses
 that I was.  NONE OF THEM HAD THE SENSE TO FIGURE OUT THAT IF IT WAS
 OKAY FOR ME, IT WAS OKAY FOR THEM TOO!  I sat and watched as they all
 were convicted and either fined or jailed!  And they had just heard
 the issues explained to them!  But the judge was not there as an
 advocate, he was a referree, and he allowed them to be convicted
 through their own ignorance, and that's how the system works!  And
 none of the attorneys even dared to raise the same issues that worked
 for me!  Do you get what I'm trying to convey??

   90Oct16 10:50 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface
Bacos @ The Clubhouse>> I don't know whether "public education" is
 diseducation or miseducation. About the only thing I can say about it
 is that the people doing the teaching are probably just as much a
 victim of it as the students (i.e.they just don't know any better and
 the odds are no one is gonna tell them about it either). It's also
 underfunded. And hopefully not as bad at universities.<<

     Remember that post by TIMECHILD about the teacher who wasn't
 allowed to read her "unapproved" poetry in class?  The same thing goes
 with "unapproved" information of any other vein.  Now, I can see the
 state's position as employer allows them to set the guidelines of what
 will be and what will not be taught.  They have a purpose in mind, and
 they are paying the hired teachers to do as they are told, not to
 think independently, even though there may be some renegade teachers
 who can get away with it.  Really dedicated teachers ought to teach
 privately, on their own, where they can advance the frontiers of
 knowledge, instead of buttressing the walls of ignorance.  Many
 students are unaware of the fact that almost anything can be learned
 privately from a private teacher.  My best learning has been done that
 way, in several different subjects.  Of course, the only people whom
 these teachers teach are the ones who want to learn so badly that they
 cough up the dough up front!  That provides the small class size that
 allows more individual time to be spent with each student.  I think
 that a lot of what we talk about here is known by public school
 teachers, but they learn to put it out of their minds and ignore it -
 life seems to function without it, and it could subject them to
 unwelcome treatment if it were known that they were teaching against
 the wishes of their "masters".
      I know for a fact that all of Congress has been given all the
 information that you will see here, and more, about the
 unconstitutionality of much of what goes on under official government
 sanction.  By and large, they ignore it totally, as if to say that
 "you and what army" are going to do anything about it!  And they can
 get away with it, because those who discover how the law works know
 that the individual is the strongest force for change, in that
 particular individual's life.  Organized groups are nowhere near as
 effective as the dedicated individual in rectifying a problem
 affecting that individual.

   90Nov25 9:36 pm from Frog Farmer @ Interface
The Mechanic @ Interface>> Unfortunately, in this demented society of
 ours it often comes down to "Us vs. Them", Us being the general public
 and them being officials of whatever nature fits the discusion.<<

      It comes down to "Us vs. Them", but I, and others, are not
 members of your "Us", the "general public".  We are examples of "the
 private sector" known as WE, The People, the source of all government
 power.  We do not identify ourselves with "the general public",
 because by now that general public has all but forgotten what freedom
 means.  They have all traded their rights for privileges, and have
 become subject to whatever a judge may decide in their case.  The
 general public goes before a judge, accused of crimes that are not
 crimes, and instead of belligerently claiming their rights, they plead
 "Guilty, with explanation, your honor".

 Mechanic>> In this case Them will win, because they are the ones with
 the badges, and when it gets down to it who will the referee (judge)
 listen to and tend to take sides with? Not very likely one of Us.<<

        What a defeatist attitude!  Any case my government feels is
 worth prosecuting me for, I feel is worth defending!  First of all,
 that car was towed by the management of the complex (or so the post
 said).  They do not have any stinkin' badges!  And another thing -
 real judges don't take "sides".  Those who do can be disqualified.  If
 you don't disqualify at least one judge in each case you have, then
 you're not having all the fun you could be having.  And even if the
 judge HATES you, it really doesn't matter, unless you are depending on
 that judge to tell you how things are.  Some people go into court to
 tell the judge how things are.  I know I do.  I'd have to say that out
 of the many judges who have presided over my prosecutions, only one
 was favorable to me.  That didn't stop me from winning the cases.
 See, the record determines who will win, and who will lose.  The
 prosecution makes their part, and we make our part of the record.
 Then the appeals court decides it without even knowing the
 personalities involved.  You can usually tell who's going to win just
 by reading the paperwork.  But your average "general public" doesn't
 even know that you need paperwork to win.  They think that the judge
 hears both sides, and picks a winner.  Real Winners walk into the
 courtroom knowing that they have already won, no matter what the trial
 judge does.  The winning papers are already in the record before the
 trial starts.  And free individuals know that a judge in a court that
 lacks jurisdiction is a powerless figure.  But an unknowing member of
 the general public never challenges the jurisdiction of the court, do
 they?  How many times have you seen it done?  And so when the
 jurisdiction is unchallenged, it is assumed and presumed to exist.
 So, you are right about the odds, but that is only due to the large
 number of unaware trusting sheep who follow instructions all the way
 to the slaughter, and the small number of knowledgeable pro se
 individuals, those black sheep who kick and bite until their victory
 is at hand.

       When you do all the things necessary to lose, a loss should come
 as no surprise.  When you avoid doing the things that almost guarantee
 a loss, and you do one or two things that help to ensure a win, your
 odds of winning go up drasticly.  Chief Justice Brennan once said that
 90% of all trial attorneys were incompetent.  That, coupled with the
 fact that 90% of all convictions come from admissions and confessions,
 ought to give you pretty good odds for a win, if you can just keep
 your mouth shut and avoid being saddled with an attorney.  Of course,
 you will hear that "He who represents himself has a fool for a
 client."  The answer to that is that we are not "representing" anybody
 - we are defending our life, liberty, and property "in person",
 becoming the "belligerent claimant in person" spoken of in the case of
 U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F Supp 538.  The Supreme Court said that such a
 person is the only one who will always be afforded his rights.

       Courts today are just a way for the government to collect more
 revenues. A competent pro se can force the court to spend $2,000 or
 more just to get $500.  How long do you think they'd like to keep that
 up?  If I don't cost them at least $2,000 per case, I'm slipping.
 Eventually, they recognise folks like me, and ignore us.  Or have us
 killed.  Like they say, "live free, or die."

Cryo Ruggie @ Wolf's Den>> I'd agree that that a Citizen is not born
 owing something to the state. He/she starts with a clean slate.  On
 the other hand, the state's under no obligation to provide him/her
 with anything either.  Easiest solution for people who don't want to
 take part in the service is to deport them someplace.<<

     You've got it all bass-akwards!  When a person accepts that which
 government provides in return for a waiver of rights, that person
 steps down a notch in status.  He is no longer a sovereign citizen,
 but a regulated subject.  If anyone should be deported, it is these
 persons incompetent to govern themselves and provide for their own
 well-being.  They are the inferior undesirables, not the free man who
 doesn't need the government to survive.  You must have forgotten that
 the government and it's subjects are subservient to the People, from
 whom all power comes.  Some people retain their power - others
 "surrender" it to the government, hoping to profit by their waiver of
 rights in return for prvileges.  It's been described as "trading their
 liberty for a mess of pottage."

 Scorched Earth @ Backfence>> The 14th Amendment is the one that
 guarantees citizens equal protection under the law.<<

      The 14th was never properly ratified.  The equal protection you
 speak of was to be for the new status of persons that it created,
 those "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  The Federal
 Government does not automatically have jurisdiction over all persons
 born in the territiories of the states.

 Cryo Ruggie @ Wolf's Den>> But surely someone - in the last 130 years
 - considered trying to test the constitutionality of the draft before
 the supreme court.  Or are the people on this BBS net the very first
 ones to consider that idea?<<

      There is no need to test it's constitutionality.  The Ashwander
 Rules would keep the Court from hearing the case.  No one would be
 able to prove that they were damaged by the law.  After all, there is
 no REQUIREMENT to "raise your right hand, take one step forward, and
 repeat..." the induction oath.  All that IS required is to register
 and be examined medically.  No one can be forced against his will to
 take an oath, and taking the oath is necessary to the induction
 process. The Court's have already ruled on that.  They frown on ruling
 upon things that have already been decided...

   90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
Barry Wong @ Garbanzo>> FF - How does one go about becoming a free
 person if they have already particpated in the system (i.e. voted and
 the like)?<<

      Well, first they have to come to the conclusion that they were
 defrauded, and cheated of their birthright.  No undue amount of study
 is required to come to this conclusion, but the ability to entertain
 ideas that are new to you is a great help.  The main problem is
 overcoming the phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" - the tendency
 to automatically disbelieve anything that goes against the ingrained
 brainwashing that we are all subjected to by society from the time we
 are born.  I know that you have seen how difficult that can be.
 You've seen the resistance that has been evidenced on this base to
 certain ideas, yet notice, when cognitive dissonance is at work, the
 person arguing against those ideas never really has a solid argument
 to back up their opposition.  Usually, vague philosophical theories
 may be put forward in an attempt to discredit the truth, but these
 vague theories are not the law. The law is what can put you behind
 bars and take your property, not vague theories.  Whether you agree
 with the law or not, it helps to at least know it for what it is, and
 not for what it "should" be in the ideasphere.  If you know what it
 really is, you'll know it when you are being lied to.  That's a very
 important first step towards freedom.
       When you come to the conclusion that you have been wronged, the
 law exists to help you put things right.  But no one will help you.
 Even me.  I do draw the line at some point, because defending my own
 rights is a full time job.  You may think that this room provides some
 help, and it may, in that it is a signpost to what lies up ahead...The
 Twilight Zone!  You think I'm joking?  Not really.  When you get into
 it, you see that the meanings of words have been so twisted around,
 that people are now automatically trained to admit to crimes that
 don't exist.  For instance, "driving without a license" is against the
 law, but did you know that to be a "driver" is an occupation in
 commerce??  If you didn't, then, even if you don't drive for profit or
 gain on the highway, you probably went and got yourelf a driver's
 license.  And you could justify it because "everybody else did" and
 "it'll save you hassles".  So, for whatever excuse feels most
 comfortable, people waive their rights, and by doing so slip deeper
 into the quicksand of servitude and slavery.  the decision to be free
 is a hard one to make.  Slave masters treat returned runaway slaves
 worse than those who never ran away, so once you opt for freedom, you
 had better be prepared for the consequences.  I can live with freedom
 mainly due to my belief in the Supreme Being, who gave me the rights I
 exercise, and who I trust to specifically perform if I uphold my end
 of my contract with Him.  So far, so good.

   90Nov29 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
BW>> Did you make a decision at some point to "exercise your rights"
 or were you raised doing that already?<<

      To some extent I was raised that way, more by my mother than by
 my father.  My father was the perfect slave, having worked for the
 FBI.  My mother was a rebel, and when I was 6 years old, she impressed
 me with stories of our country and it's beginnings.  I think the
 earliest recollection of a feeling of solidarity with FREEDOM came
 when I was taken to see the Walt Disney movie, "Johnny Tremain".  My
 mom gave me the soundtrack album for my 6th birthday.  I played it
 hundreds of times, admittedly being "brainwashed" with ideas of
 freedom and loyalty to the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the
 Constitution.  I'm not against brainwashing, in fact, I contend that I
 have purposefully brainwashed myself with the input that I choose,
 rather than to be unconsciously brainwashed by my enemies.  I don't
 look down upon someone for being brainwashed, but just for refusing to
 believe that they could be.  Once they understand the principles
 involved (developed to a high science during the Korean War and used
 by all governments and certain others ever since), it is possible to
 undo the effects, but it takes work, and is not always comfortable,
 because of cognitive dissonance, which sets in, and must be dealt
 with.
       When I was 8 years old, I remember the time when my grandfather
 came over to help my father "do his taxes" (a meaningless phrase if
 there ever was one!).  I remember my father (then ex-FBI man) stating
 that the income tax was really being administered contrary to the law,
 and they both admitted it, and yet somehow that didn't prevent them
 from complying.  I thought just a little less of my dad for his
 cowardice in doing what he knew was wrong.  He seemed to "go along to
 get along", even though what he did was wrong.
       The next time that I was motivated to think along those lines
 was well after I had been working in the "system" for years.  A
 coworker invited me to a seminar, where a man named Marvin Cooley was
 going to lecture on the illegalities of the income tax system.  Prior
 to attending the meeting, I figured out how much I had paid into the
 "system", and it amounted to over 30,000 bux, yet I was barely getting
 by at the time, struggling from month to month just to keep a roof
 over my head, and food on the table.  I really wanted to see if this
 had been necessary.  What I learned at that meeting convinced me that
 it was not necessary, but that the blame lay with me, because I had
 never looked into the law to see what it actually said, I had just
 believed what I had heard from the media, and hearsay from other
 people as ignorant as myself about the subject.  I decided that I
 would study it as well as I could, and correct the situation in my own
 life.  That course of action got me fired from the job I then held.
 My boss was afraid to send the IRS my W-4 form, which indicated I was
 exempt, since I did not owe any tax the year before, and I anticipated
 owing no tax that year - the two criteria to decide if one is exempt.
 He was so afraid of the IRS, he fired me, for which I could well have
 sued him and won, had I known better.  At that time, I didn't know
 what my remedies were.

       Shortly thereafter, I was robbed and severely injured, almost
 killed, in a middle-of-the-night robbery in my home.  Drug-crazed
 robbers of Hispanic descent entered my home on a Christmas shopping
 spree for gifts for their families.  This is what I was later told by
 persons who knew them.  They were heroin addicts.  They murdered
 someone else two weeks later only 4 blocks from my home, in a similar
 robbery.  My skull was fractured in three places by a tire iron - they
 thought I'd pass out like on TV when they hit me the first time.
 Seven increasingly severe blows later, I was still conscious, with a
 fractured skull, spurting blood in a 5-foot stream.  I was hog-tied
 and left for dead.  They took their time piling up goodies by the
 door, and loading their getaway car.  After they finally left,
 somehow, I managed to untie myself and get a neighbor to take me to
 the hospital.  Later, it came out that the local sheriffs used these
 particular robbers for doing "black bag jobs" when the law couldn't
 break in legally.  When they "did" me, it was a freelance job, on
 their own.  Even though I had been new in the neighborhood, and knew
 hardly anyone, after two months I found these scum, (I waited in the
 parking lot of the local grocery store, waiting for them to show up)
 and tracked them to where they lived, in a gov't subsidized housing
 complex.  They were on welfare and foodstamps.  I went to the
 sheriff's, asking them to arrest the people who attempted to murder
 me.  Then the cover-up began.  The investigator said, "Yeah, we
 thought it was them, but we can't do anything about it."  I asked why.
   He said, "We showed you pictures of 800 mexicans with moustaches who
 are criminals currently at large in our county, and you failed to
 point them out." (to me, all 800 criminal mexicans with moustaches
 looked alike!) I replied that now that we knew who they were, bring
 them in, and I'll identify them.  He said, "Can't do that now, because
 I just told you it was them who did it."  So nothing ever was done
 about it.  I realized that where it counted most, at home, the
 government didn't do anything for me - instead it protected those who
 would kill me.  That was the last straw.  I determined that from then
 on, any government agent or agency that wanted me to do ANYTHING had
 to prove its lawful authority, and that I would never volunteer for
 anything again.  I wasn't going to work to support my enemies. And
 every time since when government has told me I had to do this or that,
 I required them to prove it, and I even go further - I prove that I
 DON'T have to do whatever it is, in court if need be.  I rescinded all
 my contracts that I had entered into with any government agency, on
 the basis of fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, and I made it
 a point to force each issue, to the limit.  By doing so, I found out
 that I had been lied to all my life, and tricked into doing things I
 didn't have to do.  My freedom proved it to me - if I had been wrong,
 I'd be in jail.  I have been a free man now for over 12 years.  And I
 don't regret any of it.  The government (which is not the law) does
 not exist for me, and I do not exist for it.  Still, that does not
 permit me to violate the rights of anyone else, or I would be subject
 to the law, and could be punished and imprisoned.  In fact, the
 sheriff's agent told me that if I ever harmed their pet drug-addict-
 robbers, I'd go to jail.

BW>> Was there a book (or books) which were key in your plan of
 action?<<

       Yes there were.  I put up a booklist on this base once before,
 probably right after you zapped this room.  I'll post it again in the
 future.  I often post the title and author of useful books here.
 There are certainly many.  See, there is a Freedom "movement" (so-
 called) in this country, and it has it's own books, newspapers,
 newsletters, authors, video-productions, etc.  You will see no mention
 of it in any establishment bookstores, schools, media, etc. for
 obvious reasons.  The "movement" is almost universally against the
 Federal Reserve System, and so, spreading the word would be against
 the interests of those to whom the "almighty doller" is supreme.  Are
 you interested in learning more?  Just the other night, in a town near
 you, I attended a meeting where new people were being introduced to
 these concepts.  If you would like to attend the next meeting, I'll
 let you know when and where it is going to be held.  It is free to all
 interested parties.  Then, with that as a start, you can follow the
 trail of truth, and come to your own conclusions.  If you decide it
 isn't for you, at least it will be a more informed decision after you
 learn some new things you've never heard before (unless you heard them
 here!).

 Cryo Ruggie @ Wolf's Den>> Frog Farmer -  I don't really understand
 what you posted there.  Do you mean to say that, as a sovreign citizen
 I can simply go out and shot someone who bothers me, and the sue the
 government for daring to proceed against me, since the government's
 subservient to me?<<

        No.

 CR>> Or are you saying that true citizens don't need a government, and
 that we should all live in harmonious anarchy? And anyone who
 considers the need of a given society is a weakling?<<

        No.

 CR>> I guess that if the US were nation of strong selfish super-
 patriots who wish to force the "smaller people" like me out for
 considering that there's a quid-pro-quo(?), then I'd move out and let
 it fester in it's fascist delusions...<<

        Why would anyone force people like you out for recognizing that
 there's a quid-pro-quo?  You had better recognize it, since it is you
 (if you claim some special privilege that is not a matter of right)
 who owes that quid pro quo to the sovereign power.

Mark Randall @ Garbanzo>>  I'm tired of it. Now that I have my Harley,
 I get pulled over all the time just so the officer can do a warrant
 check.  Harley's get hassled a lot...<<

      And do you claim and exercise rights, or do you meekly comply and
 make admissions and confessions?  Do you ask him what his probable
 cause was to believe that you were guilty of committing some crime?

 MR>> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't give a crap if I offended the
 court...<<

       Some people think that if they make the judge mad, it goes worse
 for them.  That's true if they are subjects of the government - no
 master likes an uppity slave.

 Mark Randall>> If you travel around on the public roads without a
 license plate on your vehicle, I would expect you to attract a certain
 amount of attention, and I'm sure a police officer would pull you over
 to investigate.<<

       Yes, ignorant, uninformed police officers may feel that you
 represent some special threat to society.  However, others will not.
 Out of 9 stops for no plates in a ten year period, only three cops
 felt compelled to ticket me, and two did it just to see what would
 happen (they had their doubts).  I beat all three cases.

 MR>>... if I get pulled over and end up having to 'go downtown' to
 defend myself, can they force me to leave my vehicle at the side of
 the road?  Is there a way I can demand to follow them or something in
 order to protect my bike?<<

       You ask, "if (you) get PULLED OVER..."  How are they going to
 "pull you over", with a rope lasso?  Don't you mean "If I see a red
 light behind me, and decide to grant jurisdiction by pulling over to
 the side of the road voluntarily..."?  See, they rarely, except in the
 case of a "felony stop", ram another vehicle.  Ramming a motorcycle to
 make it stop would be use of unnecessary force, and attempted
 manslaughter.  If I were you, I'd continue going down the road at a
 safe speed until I could pull onto suitable PRIVATE PROPERTY.  They
 can't remove a vehicle from private property without your permission.

 MR>> My bike (as with most Harleys), does not require a key or
 anything to start it up, and I certainly don't want my baby stolen...
 What could I do at roadside?<<

       Don't stop on the roadside.  Continue on to private property.
 Pay the property owner if necessary to guard your bike if the cops are
 going to arrest you.  There are ways to avoid being taken "downtown",
 although I prefer to call their bluff and challenge them to arrest me.
   If they fail to take me immediately before a magistrate, and if,
 when they do take me before him, they fail to have a written complaint
 to place before him at that time, I can then sue for false arrest (as
 long as I gave the cop constructive notice at the "crime scene").

 TM>> I may not like some of the things that happen in this country or
 some of the things this country does to other countries, but I have
 the power to do something about it. I can run for president if I want
 to, or I can be a mechanic and keep people's freedom to move about at
 will moving, or I can be down on the country and criticize it for what
 it doesn't do or what it doesn't represent and generally make myself
 and everyone around me bitter.<<

       Boy, the list of things we could all do is really long, huh?
 "Freedom to move about at will"??  Don't the cars you work on mostly
 have license plates and little stickers in the corner?  How does that
 relate to "freedom to move about at will"?  Can't their moving be
 curtailed against their will for such an "offense" as not being able
 to purchase a sticker because of a general lack of any currently
 circulating "dollars" as are required to purchase such sticker?

       As for being bitter, why do that?  What's there to be bitter
 about?  If I was forced to suffer under the "system" you love so much,
 I might get bitter, but since I'm not forced to play "let's pretend",
 I'm not victimized by it, therefore how could I be bitter?  Now, I can
 see where SOMEONE might get bitter: they realise they're getting
 ripped off and royally raped, but they also don't have the guts to
 stop it.  It kinda sounds like it is in some prison movies, where some
 guy always ends up getting butt-f___ed.

 JB>> Of course (answering my own question), Mark could always ask the
 officer "Am I under arrest?" If the answer is no, theoretically he
 should be free to go where he will. But what if the answer is "yes?"
 So, the officer might be wrong, he might even appologise to Mark, but
 that would give him scant comfort if he returned to find his motor
 missing.<<

        I like to ask "Am I free to go?" since an arrest is a certain
 procedure that has certain criteria to be met to be done legally.  I
 don't want to help out with my own arrest by leaving it to the
 arresting officer to only say the one word "Yes"!  I want to see him
 go through all the DUE PROCESS that I will demand.  It doesn't help
 your position to make it easy for your oppressors.

      As far as the officer being wrong, and having the bike missing
 upon Mark's return, I guess the record would show that the officer was
 liable for damages, as long as Mark stripped him of his qualified
 immunity before they left the scene of the "crime".  Of course, if
 Mark plays the role of subject, that won't happen, will it?  I don't
 see why Mark wouldn't want to insure that his property was protected
 before he VOLUNTARILY subjected himself to a commercial jurisdiction
 in a hearing where the separation of powers might be violated, namely
 "Curbstone Court", where Executive Branch officers have been known to
 make determinations more properly made by the Judicial Branch, and
 where more overzealous officers have even gone so far as to usurp the
 functions of the Legislative Branch, such as is done when they make
 the claim that "Everybody has to have a driver's license,
 registration, and proof of insurance."   I have one friend who
 continued down a highway (4-lane divided) for over 45 minutes at 45
 MPH with at least 4 Highway Patrol Cars behind him, with red lights
 on, and sirens blaring.  He did pull off on what he thought was the
 first available private property, but he didn't actually get off
 public property. (As Maxwell Smart used to say, "He was THAT close!")
 They stole his car.  I myself haven't had to continue for that long,
 but only because of circumstances.  I would if I had to.

JB>> The thing about not stopping and granting juristiction to the
 officer in the first place, until you can stop on private property is
 prob very good. But also, you must consider that many of these
 incidents take place on freeways and in the city, where suitable
 private property isn't 'zactly commonplace. And cops have been known
 to run out of patience when `red lighting' a suspected violator who
 fails to stop.<<

       The law does not provide for different due process when a
 particular officer "runs out of patience".  You are saying that
 officer is unfit for duty??  Running out of patience could become
 expensive for him!

 JB>> In any sort of lengthy `pursuit,' one could expect at least a
 roadblock and it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility to
 have the pursuing car pull alongside a motor running at legal speed
 and attempt to run it off the road.<<

        Yeah, jimbo, AS SEEN ON TV!  Isn't TV a wonderful conditioning
 agent?  Those ramming scenarios are for "felony stops".  Where's the
 felony violation in not having plates or license?  No, I wouldn't be
 concerned about being rammed.  Just don't speed or try to evade the
 guy.  One time, coming north on 101 one early Saturday morning at
 about 6:30 AM, my unplated jungle-camoflage-painted car was approached
 quickly from behind by a highway patrolman.  He pulled up right behind
 me, and shined his white searchlight on my car, looking for a plate,
 then, he pulled up beside me and turned on his red light.  He was next
 to me.  He was moving his lips, but I couldn't read what they said.  I
 gave him a frustrated look, because I saw no private property upon
 which I could alight.  So I went past three of those interchanges in
 San Rafael.  After two, he got off, then got back on and came after me
 again, as though it might work this time.  I ignored him.  He then
 turned off his lights and got off at the next exit and I continued on
 to Sonoma County unmolested.

 JB>> Of course, anyone on a motor who lets themself get run off the
 road in that fashion prob deserves it, but that's just a subjective
 opinion, In any event, even though one MIGHT be able to recover
 damages (hospital & repair bills), better it would be not to've
 incurred them in the first place.<<

       At what price?  Freedom?  Jimbo, the cops KNOW about people who
 travel as a matter of right.  They've had special letters from
 Sacramento telling 'em how to handle it.  All I try to do is keep my
 hands in plain sight, so I don't get shot.  If the guy wants, I'll
 immediately get into the back of his car during the time he has to
 check me out.  I try to put him at ease, in so far as his own personal
 safety is concerned, but on the other hand, I try to instill stark
 terror as far as his legal and financial condition is concerned.

b0b @ Interface>> You've been pulled over 9 times in the past ten
 years for driving (excuse me, er, "travelling") without plates on your
 car?  Don't you find that terribly inconvenient?<<

         b0b, there's law against uselessly inconveniencing a motorist,
 and I point out at all times that I'm on my way to a very important
 appointment.  After all, damages start accruing immediately after the
 lawful time deemed "reasonable".  Other than a minor occasional
 inconvenience, it's no problem at all.  I mean, less than one stop per
 year average is pretty inconsequential.  And if it happens, hey, I get
 to have some fun.  It's like getting a chance at the "Big Spin" as far
 as I'm concerned.  Either I inform another officer of the way things
 are, and go on my merry way, or I get a chance to Spin!  How many
 other violators can I collect winnings from?  Do I get a chance at
 "Deep Pockets"?!  Wow!  Everyone should have this kind of opportunity!
   You don't buy lottery tickets, do you?

 b0b>> I mean, I usually have a pretty tight schedule, active human
 that I am.  I wouldn't want to have to fudge every appointment by half
 an hour because some cop might pull me over.  I have more important
 things to do than argue with policemen.<<

       b0b - NEVER ARGUE.
       Don't make admissions and confessions!
       Answer a question with a question!      I really have no problem
 with a routine traffic stop.  And you cannot guarantee you'll be on
 time for any apointment you make anyway.  There could be an accident,
 tying up the road.  You could have a flat tire.  Anything could
 happen.  To cave in to a whole system of regulation, where I have to
 play "let's pretend" and waive my rights, is not worth it compared to
 living as I choose and dealing with all the consequences.  I'm not
 asking you to do what I do - I'm just making the option known.

 b0b>> That's why I keep my running lights in order, have this year's
 sticker on my license plate, and keep my speed in check.  And though
 you may consider it a sheepish attitude, it's all through very
 conscious decisions on my part.  *I* don't want to have to deal with
 ignorant policemen pulling me over.<<

       I respect that from you, b0b.  But I must say that I keep my
 running lights in working order so I don't get hit by other cars,
 rather than through fear of being ticketed.  Also, the majority of
 officers are not that ignorant that I have seen, things having gotten
 better over the years.  For example, there was a DMV office where I
 had never before gone, and one day I went in with a friend and stood
 in line with him.  We talked as we moved forward slowly.  Before we
 reached the counter, someone called out my name.  The place became
 hushed, and I was asked to leave since there could be NO WAY I could
 have any business in there!!  THEY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING!
       I know a guy who was persuaded to stop for a police car's red
 light while he was on a motorcycle (a Harley) out in remote parts of
 Northwest Sonoma County.  When asked for his license, all he told the
 officer was that the officer had no jurisdiction over him.  He was let
 go immediately without much more being said.  Every time is different.
   The longest I've ever been detained (an I was trying to stretch it
 out to see how long I could make it) was 40 minutes.  The shortest was
 about 5 minutes.  The average is about 10 minutes or less.

Sparrowhawk>> Can a single juror just say, "excuse me your honor, I
 have a question for this witness", or does the entire jury have to be
 consulted regarding the question?<<

        I wouldn't feel obligated to consult the jury. But, to be
 polite, like at any other tennis match, I'd tell the judge that I had
 the question.  He might want to ask the person himself!  I have to
 have enough facts to make my own vote, not theirs.  If the judge tells
 them not to answer the question, I object, because I have a right to
 know the facts - "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
 truth" and everyone knows that the truth with a big chunk out of it is
 a lie!

**

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

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