Chat

Hello?

Is there anybody in there?

Just nod if you can hear me!

Is there anyone at all?

I had a newer version of this program, which does not like your server. I reverted to an older version and it seems to work just fine.

Yeah, I can blame it on Powweb again, LOL

The next time you come up for renewal, perhaps we can simply move your sites to a 1&1 account.

Now I am me.

This page will preserve the last 100 messages. It can be set for more, or less.

End of messages. Goodbye!

.

.

.

Sheesh. The chat room works, but the chatterbox is missing. LOL

Greetings.This is a new addition to the site.

Enter! There are no accidents...

Hello

i AM an accident

this chat software had to be upgraded - let me know how it is

I do not see the warning messages, and you won't either if you do not sign in, LOL. I will look into it today, but it may be just an incompatibility

Still see em

get many people on here?

Well, not yet regie

Hello..... Anyone in here?

I am a SPC and am looking for some help. I am trying to obtain a tort claim number from the risk management office in Arkansas.

Forgot about the warning message problem - i will look for an update next week, but that problem will most likely go away anyway once the break to a new server is made

Your law books are posted, they are still uploading though

nice

Ok, the white people vifdeo is where you want it

and Book H of Black's 1 is missing

once the files arew uploaded, the law disctionary links SHOULD all work - i tested many of them

I have to run to the PO Box now

then I gotta get to work on getting some invoices out

then I gotta go finish up http://nkyraisedbeds.com

maybe i will watch the walkway cam while i do that LOL

You will probably hear from their lawyer this summer, LOL

I am trying to get a hold of Gene Keating. Do you have his contact information.

I was searching for a solution th e jzip problem and come across your blog.

I have the same problem, just cant get rid of it. Nasty people who did this, they need torturing. I

Hi John, it's regie from NTT

Are you there?

your chat needs a date next to the time for message posts. so you can see what day they were posted.

I been hearin' you on the NTT chat calls, and I sent you an IM on Skype, I'm interested in forming a group with a few of the guys and yourself .

Talkin' 'bout the root trust.

what is john e mail addy?

Dear John, I was googling a street address to send my IRS payment to and I discovered a lot of personal information about you, including your phone number, street address and social security number. I was googling the following terms: "internal revenue service payments street address kansas city mo 64999-0202".

I can't find anything about CHICAGO RAILROAD COMPANY v. YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT in Colorado, ruling by CO. Supreme Court other than on John's Blog.

Can anyone help me to find this ruling: CHICAGO RAILROAD COMPANY v. YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT in Colorado, ruling by CO. Supreme Court. I have tried PLOL.Org, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, but nothing comes up.

richardgreene@aol.com THanks in advance.

http://truthspress.wordpress.com/1856-2/

CHICAGO. B. & O. R. CO. v. SCHOOL DIST,
NO. 1 IN YUMA COUNTS et al.
(No. 8512.)

(Supreme Court of Colorado. May 7, 1917.)

some of howard g's audios http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=95099&cmd=tc

See U.S.C. 1, sec 1 for who they think you are
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000001----0... 1 U.S.C. § 1 : US Code In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise -
words importing the singular include and apply to several
persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as
well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as
the present;
the words "insane" and "insane person" and "lunatic" shall
include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non
compos mentis;
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations,
companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and
joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
"officer" includes any person authorized by law to perform the
duties of the office;
"signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the person
making the same intended it as such;
"oath" includes affirmation, and "sworn" includes affirmed;
"writing" includes printing and typewriting and reproductions
of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing,
manifolding, or otherwise.

Note: hg, with permission
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT

Case Number: 7-1220
Case Name: USA v. Donovan
david h. donovan, Appellant

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL

It doesn’t matter what “charge,” indictment, information or complaint is brought against a private citizen by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case against the private sector; their very nature dictates they can’t. While many would cry out in protest, no doubt those invested economically and/or emotionally in law enforcement, it is nonetheless an accurate statement.
This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use law enforcement against itself to prove it. By law enforcement, I mean the belief “citizens” and “states” exist as real things and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.
Law enforcement is mind control; people surrender their property to men and women pretending to be “governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe they are “citizens” of a so-called “state” or the U.S. and “must pay their fair share” and cooperate in order to be a part of society. Talk about abstract concepts.
Because of these beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending to be a “cop” or “state attorney” files a “complaint” against a private citizen, no attention is paid to the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending he has a client, the so-called “state attorney.” The issue of standing is the only way of demonstrating these absurdities. One of these is despite the fact a “complaint” is filed, there is no “case or controversy” presented to the “court.” Rules programming equates “complaint” with “case.” No one under the influence of such programming challenges what a “cop” or “state” attorney files as both are perceived as “authority figures.” By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint” presents a “case or a controversy” to a court.
Standing is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1209, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 1576. The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States Supreme Court” have written: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426, 430. Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements. People under the influence of law enforcement mind control automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”, the government. This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome.
And make no mistake, this is considered a very important issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in regards to the NSA spying program. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements of standing: “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis added).
This of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case or controversy before a court may proceed: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases and controversies…”:
“This case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Article III doctrine that requires a litigant to have “standing” to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.
More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Bill of Rights in the “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article 4 and 5 of the Bill of Rights.
This means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain individual rights.” The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.” Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (emphasis added).
Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.
In accord with the standing to sue doctrine in an action in federal constitutional court by citizen against a government officer, complaining of unlawful conduct there is no justiciable controversy unless citizen shows that such conduct invades or will invade a private substantive legally protected interest of plaintiff, citizen. Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, C.C.A. 2, 134 F.2s. 694, 702.
Likewise for government to have standing to sue a private citizen under this doctrine, government complaining of unlawful conduct there is no justiciable controversy unless government shows that such conduct invades or will invade a constitutionally authorized interest of plaintiff, government. Government is a system of polity: That form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed or by which individual members of a state or nations body politic are to regulate their social actions. The constitutional government and the laws made thereunder express the rights and duties of public officers (e.g.) government employee citizens.
The fundamental rules and principles referred to as code statutes are the regulations, restraints, supervision or control which is exercised upon the individual members of an organized jural society, e.g. government internally, by those invested with internal authority or the act of exercising supreme political (internal) power and control. Chicago B. & Q.R. Co. v. School Dist. No. 1 in Yuma County, 63 Colo. 159, 165 p. 260, 263.
The substantive due process clauses of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America are a permanent injunction against governments of the nation United States and the several states baring them from imposing government bureaucrats and their internal rules, statutes, regulations, restraints, supervision or control upon the personal liberty and private property of the private citizen by any presumption or other false pretenses.
We see that standing to sue in all cases requires a controversy which is a cause of action. There are only two (2) causes of any action that can rise to the level of a case or a controversy. In both the civil and the common law, obligations and causes of action are divided into two classes – those arising ex contractu (out of a contract) and those ex delicto. The latter are such as grow out of or are founded upon a wrong or tort, e.g., trespass, trover, replevin. Where cause of action arises from a breach of a promise set forth in a contract, the action is “ex contractu”, but where it arises from a breach of duty growing out of contract, it is “ex delicto.” Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal, 2d. 807, 249 P. 2d. 257, 260.
In this instant claim before this court, I, in my private capacity have standing to sue and have stated a controversy with an actual cause of action. The Constitution for the United States of America is a contract between the governments and the American private people. The government, its bureaucrats and its pretend attorneys have breached the performance of their duty to protect my personal liberty and my private property arising from a breach of duty growing out of the contract of the Constitution, which could result in termination of said contract, if not corrected.
As a private citizen I have no duty to this great government other than to pledge my support, which I do , in all that is within its Constitution – by-laws. I have established a legal right in private property and an injury to my person as a live, natural, private citizen.
On the other side, the government, its bureaucrats and pretend attorneys have not established standing to sue, and failed to state a case or controversy and have not shown a contract from which a cause of action could arise. The government has not shown a violation of some legal right that it has under its terms and limitations of its Constitution. The government being nothing more than a public corporation which is a fiction, can not in any way show a personal injury. The bureaucrats and their pretend attorneys acting alter-ego in the name of the government for self-serving benefit perpetrated fraud and deceit upon me in my private capacity by making this claim and forcing the internal rules, statutes, regulations, restraints, supervision and controls of internal government on my private person and my private property by falsifying the record. The bureaucrats and their pretend attorney’s claims against myself and my private property are “ex dolo malo nonoritur actio.” The falsifying of the record is out of fraud and no action can arise: fraud never gives a right of action or establishes the standing to sue. No court should ever lend its aid to one who sounds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal and unconstitutional act.
A judge, although he/she must be allowed discretion, the “sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rest, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the judges, under their oaths of office.” United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat 579 CF.
A judge always errors when he/she abuses their discretion where a “judge exercises his authority to help the prosecution at a trial in which its case is going badly, by affording it another, more favorable opportunity to convict the accused.” Gori v. United States, 367 u.s. 364, 369.
CONCLUSION;
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district court as it pertains to the Plaintiff should be reversed for lack of standing to sue and failure to establish a case or controversy and to show an actual cause of action; and as it pertains to the Defendant, it should be reversed thus granting damages for Plaintiff’s taking of private property by interfering with Defendant’s use and enjoyment of private property as Defendant is the bonified purchaser for value of said property and Plaintiff violated Defendant’s federally protected right in said private property.
I declare the above to be true, correct and complete in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

Autograph _____________________________

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15094341875153306384&q=count... 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
CHICAGO.
No. 129.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued November 6, 9, 1896.
Decided March 1, 1897.

CHICAGO. B. & O. R. CO. v. SCHOOL DIST

CHICAGO. B. & O. R. CO. v. SCHOOL DIST
http://books.google.com/books?id=eAM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR6&dq=CHICAGO.+B.+%26+...

Hi john nice site. you have pasted the darkness, lightin up....

by the way, keep your head up. got to go back to work. hope to get up with CW & Lisa soon. has there been any new BINGOS??!!

i got the cds from freedom yell and what a crock of info they gave me all messed u and cant even assemble a manual with there info anyone have a idea how to handle this they r bieng very rude claled me stupid feel like posting the who cds as a scam of info they r giving

its about the getting soverion rights and a4v exempt from levey

what your name

looking 4 the correct way to use a remittance as a4v help thx

help anyone out there

anyone?

is there anyone in here that ever gets a chance to chat ? lol

re: your public notice; please check the spellings of the phrase nunc pro tunc

What do you mean, it does not work?

the link to the Chicago RR v Yuma School over at Gemini is broken; does anyone have the actual file to send me?

im on probation been violated twice facing a third for drug test been on probation for 8 yrs on my last revokation after i done 60 days they also placed me on a paydocket which has no one to report to but is able to punish or incarcerate you just as probation can when and where does double jeopardy and a dual soveriegnty come into play

not counting they changed judges after my trial started and the prosecutor wound up being my defense attorney and she just set there and didnt even plea bargin my case or nothing so they gave up some lesser charges so i plead guilty to the misdemeanors that im on probation for today that violated me and just a month ago was arrested on the paydocket because i failed to notify court of a change of address but that charge was dismissed the paydocket is ran by the court clerk and probation is ran by a private firm who subcontracts to the county any help or advise

without refrencing any book { because i simply do not know where to look, ] i am hoping to find an ave. in which to follow. So to speak...

i was arested in 2009 by fontana sheriffs for a burglary of a facility in which i stored my belongings. my boyfriend at the time was arrested and told the sheeriff that i was involved. i never spoke up to confirm or deny the acusations because it was simply not my wish to do so under the circumstanses. i was ultimately convicted to do 32 months at 80% state prison. which i did do. but at the completion of my term, due to parole, i was informed that i was not being released due to an error or miscalculation of my time/credits. after 2 more days i waas finally allowed to speak with my councelor/case manager who informed me that there had been a grave error preformed by the city/county/courts/sheriff [SHE COULDN'T QUITE SAY] against me in regard to my sentence. Ms. Martinez informed me that the case in which i had done this time, had been VACATED!!!! she also informed me {in her infinate wisdom} that i should have never been put on the bus and sent to state prison.

soooo i am asking, pleading actually to get your advice? direction? referal? to get to the bottom of this and be compensated for all that i lost in doiing said time.

i dont know what type of legal council i am looking for. i cant seem to find the right referense and or terminology in order to pursue any legal action. who do i, what do i,can i and can i do it all for no up front
fee?

sincerly seeking, serene_as_me@hotmail.com

Hi I am in foreclosure and I just receive a letter from QBE Specialty Insurance Company that said my loan is paid in full now what can I do.

John.....ASAP, PLEASE>>>I need to talk to you by phone or in person....IT"S AN EMERGENCY!!!

ok