Dada in Federal Court 7/17 .... leads to 4 days in jail

[error]

I wonder if error has ever experienced 8am

Sure, all the time. I once got up at 7:30am for a whole week.

[error]

Guess who's been here in this thread.

[toowm]

Message from Dada:

This is Dada reporting in without any urgency and requesting a verbatim transcription of this message. I guess it is a little bit time sensitive. I would like to know if any of you are from Amherst, Hollis, Brookline, Milford, or Wilton - please respond on the Dada in Fed Court thread, and announce that you exist and are from there - and a reporter may want to contact you. Please give them some way to contact you. That's all I can think of in terms of instructions, but I guess there's a reporter from the Cabinet newspaper that wants to report on this but wants to find someone who is from one of those five towns so that they have a local hook on the story. Anyway, that's all I can think of. If you have questions, please give me a shout. I won't be on the internet today or tomorrow, however, I don't think I will be anyway. Thank you very much. If you would, please put this on the Dada in Fed Court thread. Thanks guys.

[error]

Dada called in a second message:

Also if you could add this to my last message. Please private message your information to RattyDog if you're from one of those towns, to R-a-t-t-y-D-o-g on our forum, any of the information to be placed on the Dada in Fed Court thread, for the reporters. Thanks!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[d_goddard]

Got this message from Dick Marple.
I don't entirely follow it... any lawyers able to decode it?

###

I am concerned with the fact that in reading the background on this matter I see that Muirhead
presided over the "CRIMINAL" trial where the $125.00 fine was imposed. If you can convey this to all that have eyes to see and ears to hear, please do so as I guess I am not very persuasive,

If this is the case, then many students believe that the first thing that should be considered, is a demand for JURISDICTION to be placed upon the record. Both "In Personam" and "Subject Matter" jurisdiction is required to be "on the record" before any proceedings start.

The second issue for consideration is  to produce statutory authority for an employee of a bankrupt municipal corporation, appointed for a specific term of years in office, to be known as a Magistrate, to have any "criminal jurisdiction" in the Administrative Article IV "inferior tribunal", as defined in 1-8-9 and known as a "territorial court".

A search Title 28 of the United States Code reveals that only "Civil" jurisdiction has been delegated by congress to the territorial magistrates, hence Muirhead Has NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. He is NOT an Article III judge and the "United States District Court" in Concord is NOT an Article III constitutional Court. I have lectured on this many times but it goes over the heads of most listeners.  A USDC is NOT the same as a DCUS ! Only a DCUS has "Criminal Jurisdiction". What follows is the supreme courts specific definition in Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 concerning the the differences between corporate government (defined at:   28 USC 3002(15) ) and constitutional government.

"The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. { DM's comment-  Courts of the Territories  are Article IV  courts, created by congress and have only the jurisdiction congress has delegated to them. Concord, N.H. has not been delegated "Criminal Jurisdiction". At least I can not find any in Title 28 }We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' {The following are stare decisis}  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 , 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268 , 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182 , 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476 , 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101 , 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163 , 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.

As the Criminal Appeals Rules were not made applicable to the District Court"........... 


The above is crystal clear to me. Hope it is for You.

Sincerely, Dick Marple

[Russell Kanning]

so who else is headed to the courthouse tomorrow?

[Dan]

0% chance I'll be there, unless I'm fired tomorrow morning, in which case it's 100%.

Man, good luck Dada, maybe the judge will storm out again.

[error]

0% chance I'll be there, unless I'm fired tomorrow morning, in which case it's 100%.

Hurry up and get fired, so you can move home!!

[Russell Kanning]

See you guys tomorrow morning.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

I may show up.  What kinds of signs are there that I may be able to carry on the sidewalk?  I hope that some of the DHS and/or court personnel will read the US and/or NH Constitution and realize that Dave is being unjustly persecuted.  Does anyone have a stack of pocket constitutions that could be handed out to those who took an oath to support, defend and/or uphold the constitution?  Way back when I first took the oath, I didn't know what the US Constitution said, so soon after I was released from my initial training, I got myself a copy of the US Constitution and read it so that I would know what I was supposed to be supporting and defending.  Unfortunately it seems that many who take an oath to support, defend, and/or uphold the constitution never bothered to read it.  Read it, learn it, know it, share it, support it, defend it, uphold it, and live by its principles.  If the constitution is just a piece of paper, then so are all of the other (lesser) laws.

[David]

woo hoo!  At the last minute I was able to get tomorrow off.  I'll be there.  I'll aim for about 8:00 am if that is when others will likely be there. 

[error]

I can't make it prior to 10 am. Possibly not at all.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

If you watched the videos of his peaceful protests and/or read the summaries, I think you would understand.  He didn't interfere with business.  He just walked into the buildings with a sign, handed out a couple flyers, and stood in the corner until asked to leave, when he subsequently left.  At one of the protests, people didn't react to him and just went about their business.  He did not infringe on anyone else's rights.  He did not block the right of way or interfere with anyone's movements.  He was charged with "distributing handbills" IIRC.  In other words, his "crime" was handing a piece of paper to a federal employee and placing another one on a table, desk, or other horizontal surface.  You seem to be confused about what actually happened.

[Russell Kanning]

blocking an IRS agent while he works is a decent and upright thing to do

[Russell Kanning]

the ICE DHS guy carries a constitution with him .... that is his weapon against us
They think it is a tool to hold us back .... and it seems to be.