|
|
SEPT. 1, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 220/213; SECOND PREMISE
Enough said about this premise. Even stonewallers should get this message! Even MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS should get this message!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=213 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 2, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 221/214; THIRD PREMISE
[BODY SHUTDOWN=214 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 3, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 222/215; FOURTH PREMISE
"They" have devoted significant amounts of time, energy and resources to make it appear as though I had psychiatric problems, none to facilitate treatment for me for any such problems, and absolutely none to determine whether or not I in fact had any such problem. In minnesota, situs of the original suspension, alcohol and drug treatment programs are as a matter of course made available by the disciplinary body to attorneys claiming alcoholism and addiction as a defense. In minnesota, alcoholism and drug addiction are virtually boiler plate defenses in disciplinary proceedings, most notably in instances when the charges against the individual are supported by OBJECTIVE evidence, in the caught red handed scenarios. I repeat, they expended zero, none, not any time, energy and resources in a way which would lead to a cure of the fictitious phantom illness. Do your life experiences lead you to conclude, as I have, that:
Are not stonewallers truly bad guys! What kind of prism are the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS looking through which lets them see there were "psychiatric problems" to support the suspension??? Are not MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS truly bad guys!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=215 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 4, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 223/216; FIFTH PREMISE
Those of my generation know that master race, uber alles, and euthanasia were virtual mantras of Hitler. Those of my generation know well the price we, indeed the world, paid to repudiate arbitrary elitism. Is not Kosovo a fuss about arbitary elitism? If it is so bad when others do it, why is it not bad when we ourselves do it? And if the requirements for practicing law are, in fact, totally arbitrary in some instances ... Is not what the stonewallers do arbitrary elitism? Why do we so complacently tolerate what the stonewallers do? Is not what the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS do arbitrary elitism??? Why do we so complacently tolerate what the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS do???
[BODY SHUTDOWN=216 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 5, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 224/217; PRAYER
Can not the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS answer that prayer with only four words:
[BODY SHUTDOWN=217 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 6, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 225/218; LABOR DAY
[BODY SHUTDOWN=218 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 7, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 226/219; NO MESSAGE
[BODY SHUTDOWN=219 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 8, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 227/220; QUICK READ
The above is an excerpt from the last page of the opinion by which I was suspended from the practice of general law by the state of minnesota. The patent and trademark office rubber stamped the so-called opinion. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion is unlawful on its face. Should anyone trouble themselves to go beyond that face, they would find that any such "psychiatric" problem issue had been expressly excluded as an issue in the proceedings. The trial/hearing judge (a District Court Judge), had denied a Rule 35 Motion for Mental examination sought by the state. I had not objected to the motion. The only caveat I had put on that issue was that the state pay for an expert witness of my choice, and pay for my time because my practice was very young. The law clearly gave me the right to have my own expert witness present (the tests are very subjective, Rohrshock ink blot and the like). Let's put this mental thing to rest once and for all. About
5 years
prior to the Rule 35 disciplinary proceeding motion of the above
paragraph,
as part of divorce proceedings, I had been through this psychiatric
testing
drill. I characterize the process as one of each side getting a
hired gun
(expert witness) and they go into court and have a shoot out. We
did. My
ex's experts said yes he is. Mine said no he isn't. The judge said
nothing.
The last is the most significant. That judge issued a proper
decision,
one which included findings of fact, and conclusions of law. He
made no
direct finding whatsoever relating to the psychiatric issue. He
inferentially
did so when he found I was a "fit parent".
THE MAJOR LIES: I. That at the time in question, I had psychiatric problems which rendered me incompetent, or was otherwise incompetent, to represent clients in the state of minnesota. At best, an unproven allegation. In fact, calculated character assasination and business libel. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. II. That if I in fact had psychiatric problems, I would not seek appropriate treatment. The court, and that is taking major liberties with the word, correctly wrote that there was "no evidence that [I] was disposed to submit to psychiatric or other medical treatment." (Literally true, but misleading.) Of course there wasn't any evidence. The matter had been specifically excluded from issue during pre-trial. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. Every proper judicial proceeding of this type should follow the following progression: 1) allege it; 2) prove it; 3) incorporate it into a finding(s) of fact; 4) incorporate it into conclusions of law; and 5) incorporate it into the final order. "They" omitted the first four steps. I defy anyone to compare the so-called opinion to any recognized standard for essential elements in a decision, such as those undoubtedly provided to newly appointed judges. The entire so-called opinion is A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion had to have been written before the trial on the merits, and almost certainly was written before the pre-trial hearing at which the Rule 35 Motion for mental examination was denied. A very calculated, pre-meditated MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion includes fifty two denigrations. At best, if one could succeed in comprehending them, and with one possible exception, probably boiler plate assertions that apply to every person who has ever practiced law. In reality, totally unrelated to "instability" or "psychiatric". It is as though they are gratuitous. The exception may be those which relate to my asking two clients to provide me with AFFIDAVITS OF GOOD FAITH. Their official position was that asking the clients to sign a very simple affidavit was intimidation. In reality, an admission that the client could not sign the affidavit without committing perjury. A MONSTROUS PACK OF LIES. One lied. The other swore to it. The oxymoronic language of the suspensions would be comical had it no consequences. The actual consequences are the implementation of a scheme of victimization so massive it is a virtual death sentence. The combination of departure from standard legal procedures, total lack of any objective evidence whatsoever, total absence of reasoning to support the subjective judgments upon which the suspension is based, and total absence of any conduct consistent with empathy for a sick person make it clear that the proceedings had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with carrying out any legal function but instead was solely concerned with carrying out private agendas, agendas violative of the Constitution. Indeed, the agendas of these perpetrators was contemptuous of the Constitution, as contemptuous as contemptuous gets. By their arbitrary action, and the condonation of that arbitrary action implicit in the actions and non-actions of the numerous government and private sector individuals from whom relief from this victimization has been sought evidence a pervasive elitism in this society, and thus a significant element of defacto fascism in this society. Stonewallers, you understand the premises! Stonewallers, you know the suspension is unlawful! Stonewallers, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief! Stonewallers, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution! Stonewallers, you know you subvert the Constituion when you deny the victim relief! Stonewallers, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you understand the premises!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know the suspension is unlawful!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know you subvert the Constituion when you deny the victim relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=220 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 9, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 228/221; TREASURY NOTICE
ATTENTION: CHERYL FAX#: 202 622 0073 December 22, 1995 The Honorable Robert Rubin The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States 15th. & Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220 Dear Mr. Secretary: Curiously, there seems to be one item of "old business" which didn't survive the transition from Secretary Bentsen's agenda to yours. Secretary Bentsen's supervisory authority had been invoked in the "PonyTail" matter Briefly, I am widely known as the PonyTail and have been unlawfully suspended from the practices of general law in Minnesota and patent law throughout the United States. I claimed a loss on my income tax return for the unlawful destruction of my law practices. The IRS disallowed the loss and I appealed. IRS counsel verbally agreed in pre-trial conference that the suspensions were unlawful, but refused to so stipulate. It has been a significant number of years since I have filed a tax return. I had A's in my tax courses in law school. Unequivocally, I am entitled to claim a loss for the unlawful destruction of my law practices. The amount of the loss is subjective and can be disputed; the fact of the loss can not. My options have been to sue or settle. Because the liability is so clear cut, my choice has been to seek a settlement. I duly presented the issue to Treasury and systematically moved the issue through channels, ultimately invoking Secretary Bentsen's supervisory authority. Treasury's response has been, without reservation, qualification or condition, to compound the original injury. Treasury has been an instrument of tyranny. The first suspension occurred in 1978. The trials and tribulations since then have been debilitating. Immediate partial reparation is needed to protect my life. Immediate partial reparation shall reduce the government's total liability. One of two things must be done. Either the government cuts me a check for an amount sufficient to meet my expenses until settlement terms can be worked out, or, government must acknowledge its liability and thereby enable me to obtain a loan. An amount of $100,000.00 is needed immediately. This is less than one tenth of one percent of the claim. Accompanying are a document labeled Exhibit "A" from which the unlawfulness of the Minnesota suspension is immediately apparent, a paper titled Void Judicial Decisions which sets forth the controlling law, and a copy of a letter invoking Secretary Bentsen's supervisory authority. The crux of the matter is that Francine Kerner of Treasury verbally made a totally ludicrous disposition of the matter but refused to put it in writing. Francine Kerner reported to Jean Hanson and Ms. Hanson refused to exercise her supervisory authority over Francine Kerner. Jean Hanson reported to Secretary Bentsen. The unlawful suspension consequences have reached life threatening proportions. With Resolve, Keith B. Davis - PonyTail PO Box 476 Fairfax, VA 22030 accmpny: Exh. A; Void; Invoke
[BODY SHUTDOWN=221 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 10, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 229/222; WHITE FLAG
[BODY SHUTDOWN=222 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 11, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 230/223; NO MESSAGE POSTED SEPT. 12, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 231/224; PRAYER FOR PEACE
[BODY SHUTDOWN=224 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 13, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 232/225; WHITE FLAG II
Stonewallers, that simple four word sentence would be accepted as a white flag! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, that simple four word sentence would be accepted as a white flag!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=225 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 14, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 233/226; WHITE FLAG III
[BODY SHUTDOWN=226 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 15, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 234/227; WHITE FLAG IV
[BODY SHUTDOWN=227 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 16, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 235/228; WHITE FLAG V
[BODY SHUTDOWN=228 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 17, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 236/229; NONE
SEPT. 18, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 237/230; NONE
SEPT. 19, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 238/231; 15 MINUTES
I pray the stonewallers hear this prayer! I pray the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS hear this prayer!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=231 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 20, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 239/232; QUICK READ
All that is asked of you is your thoughtful consideration of an issue, The PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice. Over the course of the Strike, so much material has been generated that it must now be a daunting task for newcomers to assimilate the material, particularly because of the newspaper columnist and thematic style of many of the Daily Messages (DMs). That body of material had developed facts which make an unrefutable showing of a denial of justice to the PonyTail, including rights expressly guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution. The most basic and fundamental of these were summarized as "premises" in the 30 August DM. There are two reasons for characterizing those facts as premises. For those who are open minded and truly interested in making an informed decision about the issue, a statement of premises is logically correct. Secondly, for my adversaries who are only interested in developing whatever spin would best serve their selfish interests, they are thus presented as a direct challenge. By these premises a gauntlet is thrown down. "They" are dared, and the fair minded are invited, to attack them! The premises are all as solid as solid can be; each and every one is as solid as solid can be. The combination of the premises and the Death Sentence Section of the PonyTail Institute for Change (pi4c) website provides a "Quick Read" of what the PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice is all about. Four of the five premises are exactly as set forth in the 30 August DM. The fifth, premise 3, has been modified only to make it more inclusive; specifically, to include individuals other than the original perpetrators. New readers may be a bit puzzled by the 5th. premise and wonder why it is even included. Admittedly, it is not in any way essential to establishing any of the injustices for which relief is sought. It does, however, contribute significantly to the PonyTail Issue big picture. For now, the emphasis must necessarily be kept on the life threatening hunger strike so suffice it to say that fascism is dealt with at length at the pi4c website, MARQUEE ISSUES, Defacto Fascism. Again, all that is asked is your thoughtful consideration of The PonyTail Hunger Strike for Justice issue.
The patent and trademark office rubber stamped the so-called opinion. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion is unlawful on its face. Should anyone trouble themselves to go beyond that face, they would find that any such "psychiatric" problem issue had been expressly excluded as an issue in the proceedings. The trial/hearing judge (a District Court Judge), had denied a Rule 35 Motion for Mental examination sought by the state. I had not objected to the motion. The only caveat I had put on that issue was that the state pay for an expert witness of my choice, and pay for my time because my practice was very young. The law clearly gave me the right to have my own expert witness present (the tests are very subjective, Rohrshock ink blot and the like). Let's put this mental thing to rest once and for all. About 5 years prior to the Rule 35 disciplinary proceeding motion of the above paragraph, as part of divorce proceedings, I had been through this psychiatric testing drill. I characterize the process as one of each side getting a hired gun (expert witness) and they go into court and have a shoot out. We did. My ex's experts said yes he is. Mine said no he isn't. The judge said nothing. The last is the most significant. That judge issued a proper decision, one which included findings of fact, and conclusions of law. He made no direct finding whatsoever relating to the psychiatric issue. He inferentially did so when he found I was a "fit parent". THE MAJOR LIES: I. That at the time in question, I had psychiatric problems which rendered me incompetent, or was otherwise incompetent, to represent clients in the state of minnesota. At best, an unproven allegation. In fact, calculated character assassination and business libel. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. II. That if I in fact had psychiatric problems, I would not seek appropriate treatment. The court, and that is taking major liberties with the word, correctly wrote that there was "no evidence that [I] was disposed to submit to psychiatric or other medical treatment." (Literally true, but misleading.) Of course there wasn't any evidence. The matter had been specifically excluded from issue during pre-trial. A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. Every proper judicial proceeding of this type should follow the following progression: 1) allege it; 2) prove it; 3) incorporate it into a finding(s) of fact; 4) incorporate it into a conclusion(s) of law; and 5) incorporate it into the final order. "They" omitted the first four steps. I defy anyone to demonstrate that the so-called opinion complies with any recognized standard for essential elements in a decision, such as those undoubtedly provided to newly appointed judges. The entire so-called opinion is A MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion had to have been written before the trial on the merits, and almost certainly was written before the pre-trial hearing at which the Rule 35 Motion for mental examination was denied. A very calculated, pre-meditated MAMMOTH LIE. One lied. The other swore to it. The so-called opinion includes fifty two denigrations. At best, if one could succeed in comprehending them, and with one possible exception, probably boiler plate assertions that apply to every person who has ever practiced law. I don't believe any include either a direct or indirect link to "instability" or "psychiatric". It is as though they are gratuitous. The exception may be those which relate to my asking two clients to provide me with AFFIDAVITS OF GOOD FAITH. Their official position was that asking the clients to sign a very simple affidavit was intimidation. In reality, their position was an admission that the client could not sign the affidavit without committing perjury. A MONSTROUS PACK OF LIES. One lied. The other swore to it. The oxymoronic language of the suspensions would be comical had it no consequences. The actual consequences are the implementation of a scheme of victimization so massive it is a virtual death sentence. The combination of departure from standard legal procedures, total lack of any objective evidence whatsoever, total absence of reasoning to support the subjective judgments upon which the suspension is based, and total absence of any conduct consistent with empathy for a sick person (Reference: September 3rd. DM) make it clear that the proceedings had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with carrying out any legal function but instead was solely concerned with carrying out private agendas, agendas violative of the Constitution. Indeed, the agendas of these perpetrators were contemptuous of the Constitution, as contemptuous as contemptuous gets. Their arbitrary action, and the condonation of that arbitrary action implicit in the actions and non-actions of the numerous government and private sector individuals from whom relief from this victimization has been sought, evidence a pervasive arbitrary elitism in this society, and thus evidence a significant element of defacto fascism in this society. The issue started in the state of minnesota, lack of capitalization deliberate, and numerous attempts to obtain relief from various state officials produced no response. The most recent was on June 4, 1999 when standard handout materials were handed directly to governor Jesse Ventura. An agreement was reached at that time with members of his staff to open lines of communication for the purpose of resolving the issue. They reneged on the agreement. Most damning is the behavior of three of the highest offices in this society, Treasury, Justice and the President's Chief of Staff's office. Each of those three offices has engaged in STONEWALLING. The issue was duly and properly worked up through the entire chain of command in each of Treasury and Justice. On December 7, 1993 it was placed directly on the desk of Attorney General Reno by invoking her supervisory authority. I was told by her executive secretariat's office that she personally had reviewed the communication invoking her supervisory authority. There has been no response from Reno. On December 13, 1993 it was placed directly on the desk of then Secretary of Treasury Bentsen. I am 90% certain that I was told by his executive secretariat's office that he personally had reviewed the communication invoking his supervisory authority. There was no response from Bentsen, nor has there been any response from any of Bentsen's successors, and each of those successors has in turn been sent a communication advising them of this unresolved item of "old business" of their predecessor. After numerous efforts to elicit a response from Justice and Treasury fell upon deaf ears, the supervisory authority of President Clinton was invoked by means of a communication to him addressed to his Chief of Staff's (CoS's) office. The non- response-response from the CoS's office was orders of magnitude worse than those of Justice and Treasury. The personnel in the CoS's office were overtly hostile. The issue was a legitimate issue for approximately ten years at various levels in the chain of command. These non-actions, where action is thus unequivocally required, are quintessential stonewalling. Accordingly, stonewalling was made the central theme of the hunger strike, and the following has been addressed to the stonewallers, yea verily, the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS: Stonewallers, you understand the premises! Stonewallers, you know the suspension is unlawful! Stonewallers, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief! Stonewallers, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution! Stonewallers, you know you subvert the Constitution when you deny the victim relief! Stonewallers, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you understand the premises!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know the suspension is unlawful!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that under the Constitution the victim is entitled to relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know you subvert the Constitution when you deny the victim relief!!! MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you know that it is only a question of time until denial of relief to the victim shall result in his death!!! All that was asked was your thoughtful consideration of the matter. Just as I knew my adversaries could not possibly successfully attack the premises, I was equally confident that any fair minded person would find the matter a just and worthy cause. And, I am equally confident that anyone finding the matter a just and worthy cause would want to do whatever they could to see that justice is done. Accordingly, for your convenience, contact information is provided below which will allow you to become pro-active on behalf of the cause, a cause which in the larger scheme of things is believed to be of great importance to this society, indeed to be very important to every person on this planet. (Will not the 5th. premise, an integral if not essential element of the cause, ultimately be the final nail in the coffin of fascism on planet earth?) Virtually all of you are familiar with how fast a doubling progression changes a totally insignificant number into a huge number ala the starting with a penny and doubling it every day phenomena. Your pro-active contact of the "bad guys" every day and recruiting two others to do the same thing would absolutely guarantee success for the cause, wouldn't it! While we are on that subject, note that the voice number for the Secretary of Treasury has been changed on the DM boiler plate contact information. When I was double checking the numbers for the QUICK READ Section (at 6:45 a.m. this morning), the Treasury number response was that I had reached "Neil Comstock". I waited until after Treasury had opened and asked an operator for their Executive Secretariat's number. "Edith" gave me the number 202 622 2735. When I called that number, it was answered "Neil Comstock" by an individual who acknowledged I had indeed reached Treasury Executive Secretariat. He confirmed that the Executive Secretariat's office was the highest administrative level in Treasury. I asked him about the old "0064" number, and he said it was also Treasury Executive Secretariat. I also asked him which was the better of the two numbers for reaching the Executive Secretariat's offfice, and he said they were equally good. The number is being changed, however, because I want the number to correspond with the number being given out by Treasury operators. A "fifteen minute appointment" was requested from each of Treasury, Justice and the Chief of Staff's office this morning. A fifteen minute appointment and a yea or nea, stonewallers! A fifteen minute appointment and a yea or nea, MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=232 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] TELE: 651 296 3391 FAX: 651 296 2089 email: jesse.ventura@state.mn.us | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PRESIDENT | ATTORNEY GENERAL | TREASURY SECRETARY |
| TELE: 202 456 6797 | TELE: 202 514 2063 | TELE: 202 622 0064 |
| FAX: 202 456 1907 | FAX: 202 514 4507 | FAX: 202 622 0073 |
| email: president@whitehouse.gov | email: NONE | email: OPCMail@do.treas.gov |
| CONTINUE REVIEW | BACK TO MAIN MENU |
|
SEPT. 21, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 240/233; VOID IN TOTO
It is a rule as old as the law that every man is entitled to his day in court, that everyone is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, Galpin v Page, 21 LEd 959, 963, 18 Wall 350, Riley v Pearson, 139 NW 361 366, 120 Minn 210, Moore v Smith, 15 SE2d 48, 49, 177 Va 621. A decision of a court without hearing or giving a party an opportunity to be heard on an issue is not a judicial determination of the issue, Windsor v McVeigh, 23 LEd 914, 916, 93 US 274, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal, Windsor, supra. at 916, Galpin, supra at 963. In most of the cases involving lack of notice and opportunity to be heard a party was not personally before the court and they typically involve constructive service of process. An exception is a Minnesota case in which two co-defendants were alleged to have conspired. Both defendant's filed motions to dismiss after the evidence against them had been introduced, and the motion of one co-defendant was granted but denied as to the other. Ultimately a decision unfavorable to the remaining defendant was entered. Upon appeal it was held that because one of the two alleged conspirators had been dismissed the decision entered necessarily related to some issue other than the original conspiracy. A fortiori the remaining defendant did not have notice of the actual issue nor an opportunity to defend it, and thus the decision was void, Armstrong v Lyons, 366 F2d 206, 209. The 8th Circuit court of appeals, the circuit which includes the state of Minnesota, has even held that the requirements for notice and an opportunity to be heard are not complied with albeit the issue has been fully litigated before a commissioner if the aggrieved party is denied an opportunity to argue his exceptions to the commissioner's findings before the court to which the findings were submitted, In re Noell, 93 F2d 5,6. In other words, a court can not rubber stamp a commissioner's findings but must afford the aggrieved party an opportunity to be heard re his exceptions to the findings. Actual litigation of the issue per se did not satisfy the due process requirement of an opportunity to be heard. A decision invalid on its face is void, a nullity, and is open to attack or impeachment in any proceeding, direct or collateral, Riley, supra. at 366, Carpenter v Carpenter, 93 SE2d 617, 622, 244 NC 286, and at any time, Carpenter, supra. at 622, Simonds v Norwich, (C.C.A. 8) 73 F2d 412, 415. Indeed, a tribunal is precluded from recognizing a void order of a state court as valid, In re Noell, supra. at 6, Selling v Radford, 37 S Ct 377, 379, 243 US 46, 51. VOID, stonewallers, VOID! VOID, MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, VOID!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=233 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 22, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 241/234; EDTs
[BODY SHUTDOWN=234 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 23, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 242/235; PETITION FOR REDRESS
[BODY SHUTDOWN=235 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 24, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 243/236; 1ST AMENDMENT DENIAL
MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, according to the conspiracy laws, you are a party to this denial of my first amendment rights!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=236 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 25, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 244/237; NO HELP
[BODY SHUTDOWN=237 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 26, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 245/238; PRAYER
[BODY SHUTDOWN=238 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 27, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 246/239; MORATORIUM DECLARATON
That proposed solution of the issue is my perception of the most amicable resolution possible. Perhaps they are limiting their perception to one which I know full well exists within the coterie of the arbitrary elitists; namely, that the only view that exists, is their officially approved view. If that is the case, they are even more irresponsible than even I thought them to be, for I know, and they know, for an absolute fact that a significant number throughout the world totally reject their arbitrary "officially approved" view and consider that view as a contemptuous disregard of the principles of democracy. Perhaps and if. They shall be given until midnight September 29th., through September 29th. and to September 30th. to schedule such an appointment. If, stonewallers, you believe, or pretend to believe you are not damaging this society, you are bigger fools than even I believed! If, MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS, you believe, or pretend to believe you are not damaging this society, you are bigger fools than even I believed!!! That having been said, in an effort to minimize the damage which the totally unjustified perpetuation of this issue by the stonewallers is causing this society, a moratorium is unilaterally declared through September 29th. and to September 30th, until midnight September 29th! That having been said, in an effort to minimize the damage which the totally unjustified perpetuation of this issue by the MURDEROUS STONEWALLERS is causing this society, a moratorium is unilaterally declared through September 29th. and to September 30th, until midnight September 29th!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=239 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 28, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 247/240; MORATORIUM DAY 2
[BODY SHUTDOWN=240 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 29, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 248/241; MORATORIUM 3RD DAY
[BODY SHUTDOWN=241 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] SEPT. 30, 1999 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 249/242; ELECTIVE PROCESS DEMOCRACY
There has been no official response. More stonewalling. ELECTIVE process democracy certainly produces stonewalling! ELECTIVE process democracy certainly produces MURDEROUS STONEWALLING!!!
[BODY SHUTDOWN=242 DAYS] [BODYWEIGHT LOSS>24%] [VICTIM'S AGE > 60] [MESSENGER NOT PROBLEM] BAD GUY CONTACT INFORMATION TELE: 651 296 3391 FAX: 651 296 2089 email: jesse.ventura@state.mn.us |
| PRESIDENT | ATTORNEY GENERAL | TREASURY SECRETARY |
| TELE: 202 456 6797 | TELE: 202 514 2063 | TELE: 202 622 2735 |
| FAX: 202 456 1907 | FAX: 202 514 4507 | FAX: 202 622 0073 |
| email: president@whitehouse.gov | email: NONE | email: OPCMail@do.treas.gov |
|
This is a work in progress. There shall be more as time and energy permits. COPYRIGHT 1999 PonyTail Institute for Change |