Two Roosevelt dimes contain 0.14468 oz of silver. If gas costs $4 in FRNs, then the implicit price of silver that makes $4 equivalent to 0.14468 oz of silver is $27.65 per ounce. So, this price seems roughly in the ballpark. But, if we take $35, which is nearer today’s silver’s price, then the implied price of gasoline is $5.06, which is steep. At any price less than $5.06, I’d hold on to the dimes and use FRNs. One has to be careful about these things. One also needs a conversion table. This could be sold as an application on a handheld device. I’m giving away a profitable idea here. The device could read in the spot price of silver from a web site. The user punches in the FRN price. Then the equivalent amount of silver coin is the output.
It only costs 4-cents to produce 1 gallon of gas and deliver it to the pumps...that's in private "Federal" Reserve Notes (US "dollars" have not existed since 1913).
Mr Smith, 57, first had sex with a car at the age of 15, and claims he has never been attracted to women or men.
But his wandering eye has spread beyond cars to other vehicles. He says that his most intense sexual experience was "making love" to the helicopter from 1980s TV hit Airwolf.
"Why shouldn't fact be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, HAS to make sense." -Mark Twain, aka Sam Clemens, member of the Necrophila Room at Bohemian Grove homosexual nudist compound and presidential retreat for snuff kiddie porn
You don't need to know "every law" that was ever written - you just need to know "the law of the case".
Consider the fellow piling things in the balance shown here. Imagine he is "building his case". He doesn't have a great number of things on his side. He just has a wee bit more than the other side, and that's all it takes to win!
Admissible Evidence Law of the Case
I talked about this Friday evening on my Republic Broadcasting Network show (Friday 9 p.m. Eastern Time). A caller wanted to know how a pro se litigant (someone without a paid lawyer on his side) could possibly win against someone with a law school graduate working for him.
My answer is simple!
You don't need to know everything lawyers know!
You only need to know (1) the law of your case and (2) how to force the court to admit your evidence and enter the orders you seek.
Sound simple? That's because IT IS SIMPLE!
My Nephew Bryan came to visit this weekend. He's on his way to law school in August. He asked, "How can a pro se litigant ever hope to win against a law school graduate?"
I gave him the same answer.
Pro se people only need to know (1) the relatively simple "law of the case" and (2) how to force the court to admit their evidence and enter judgment based on the "law of the case" and the admissible evidence!
If only we could convince everyone of this simple truth we would stop corruption in high places by the Power of the People commanding our judges and lawyers to obey the law!
Yet, what I tell you today IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE!
To win, you don't really need to know much at all!
Here's an example dear to the hearts of many of you. A bank brings a foreclosure action. What is the law of the case? There are really only a few laws that control the outcome? And, you certainly don't need to go to law school to learn all the law there is to know about notes and mortgages.
Does plaintiff own and hold the promissory note? Are payments on the note current? Are other conditions of the note satisfied? Is the note secured by a valid mortgage? Does plaintiff own and hold the mortgage? Are all signatures on the documents genuine? Has plaintiff satisfied all conditions precedent?
That's about it. There may be a few issues of law that vary from one case to another, but these are common to all foreclosures - and they can be determined in about an hour or two of online legal research thanks to the internet!
Once you're able to argue what the law of the case is, the rest is simply a matter of convincing the court that:
The law of the case is what you say it is, and...
You have more admissible evidence of the facts that "fit" with the law of the case. Now, it may be that the other side takes a different view of "the law of the case". That's ok. Happens all the time. That's what makes lawsuits FUN.
You get to argue
The Law of the Case, and present your
Admissible Evidence of the facts in support, and the party that piles the most "pieces" on their side of the scale wins!
But, you don't need to know all that I know to win! You don't need to know probate law to win a foreclosure, nor do you need to know torts, taxes, or even contract law (beyond that part of it that applies to promissory notes and mortgages)!
Are you beginning to see why Jurisdictionary is so popular?
Winning IS easy!
When I went to law school back in the early 80's, I had to learn the law about property, contract, torts, evidence, constitutions, crimes, taxes, probate, guardianship, family law, and much, much, much more.
YOU don't need to know all I know to win!
If you have a lawyer, will your lawyer do everything that must be done to win? Will your lawyer fight for you, even when it means making the judge angry? Will your lawyer spend time for you, when you cannot afford to pay for every hour that's needed to win? If you cannot pay your lawyer for all the hours needed to get evidence, prepare for hearings, research the law, draft effective motions, etcetera, who is going to get the job done?
Will your lawyer even tell you what could have been done, what should have been done ... once you lose?
What if your lawyer gets up on the wrong side of bed?
What if your lawyer is afraid to stand up to the judge and threaten appeal by objecting to the judge's rulings?
You'd be amazed how many are afraid of judges!
Where does this leave YOU?
Legal malpractice and courtroom corruption are on the rise these days, yet most people have no idea how to fight back and protect themselves. Most people have no idea what it takes to win in court ... or how easy it is once you learn how!
When a judge lets a lawyer on the other side get away with smoke-and-mirrors games, YOU LOSE!
When a judge won't let you make objections to preserve your record for appeal, YOU LOSE!
When your own lawyer (if you have one) bails at the last minute when crunch time comes or wimps out when it's necessary to hold the judge accountable to the rules, if YOU don't know what to do, YOU LOSE!
Most disturbing of all, if you lose for these reasons YOU CANNOT APPEAL YOUR LOSS!
The only way to protect yourself is to learn!
Know what it takes to win in court!
Get the official Jurisdictionary self-help course!
According to a recent NewsChannel 5 investigation, law enforcement agencies in localities across Tennessee have a longstanding policy of apparently stealing money from innocent drivers who travel along I-40.
This recent investigative report will make your jaw drop and your blood boil. Watch it here.
The Institute for Justice (a libertarian legal-aid foundation) has given Tennessee a D- rating in this “policing for profit” scandal.
But sadly this is a disturbing trend not only here in TN but across the country… Reason Magazine also discusses The Forfeiture Racket.
The International Society for Individual Liberty lists other notable cases.
By Phil Williams Chief Investigative Reporter May 13, 2011
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A major NewsChannel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee's war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?
At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.
It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee.
Case in point: a 2009 stop where a tractor trailer was stopped for a traffic violation, leading to a search and the discovery of large blocks containing almost $200,000 cash -- cash that officers keep on the suspicion that it's drug money.
"What's wrong with having a large amount of cash?" asked Karen Petrosyan, a California businessman who owned the truck.
Petrosyan refuses to admit there's anything suspicious about the stash that police discovered. Officers later released his father, who was driving the truck, without filing a single charge -- and authorities cut a deal that let Petrosyan come to Tennessee to get his big rig back.
"If I am a criminal, if they allege me to be a criminal," Petrosyan told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "why would they settle? They do not just let criminals go."
District Attorney General Kim Helper said that "in general, it was seized because -- based upon our evidence and probable cause -- it's illegal drug proceeds."
Still, Helper admitted that what makes the Petrosyan case a bit unusual is the location. The traffic stop occurred in Smith County, near the Carthage exit. But the officers work for Helper's 21st Judicial District Drug Task Force out of Franklin -- more than an hour away.
Her officers patrol that area under a deal where they give a third of any cash they seize to the agency that owns that stretch of road.
"It's a way to make money ... for your task force?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Helper.
The DA paused.
"Honestly?" we asked, prompting a smile from Helper.
"Well, you know, when you say 'make money,' I guess it is a way for us to continue to fund our operations so that we can put an end to drug trafficking and the drug trade within this district," she responded.
In fact, Interstate 40 has become a major profit center for Tennessee law enforcement -- with officers stopping and often searching out-of-state vehicles. It's because of a state law that lets them seize money simply based on the suspicion that it's linked to drug trafficking.
If an owner does not take legal action to get the money back, the agency gets to keep it all.
"This is really highway shakedowns coming to the U.S.," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney with the Washington-based Institute for Justice.
Last year, the conservative-leaning group issued a report -- "Policing for Profit" -- that gave Tennessee a D-minus for civil forfeiture laws that make that it all possible.
Read the "Policing for Profit" report here
"Under civil forfeiture," Bullock said, "you give law enforcement a direct and perverse incentive to go out and try to take as much property from citizens as possible."
Dickson Police Chief Ricky Chandler said, "What we are doing, we're taking advantage of how the laws are, to use the money to be able to put back to fight the drugs."
Chandler heads the board for the 23rd Judicial District Drug Task Force, which has made millions off seizures in its counties -- Humphreys, Dickson and Cheatham. The town of Fairview also provides officers to the Task Force in exchange for a cut of the cash.
Then, three years ago, Chandler and the Dickson County sheriff helped create a second team -- known as Dickson Interdiction Criminal Enforcement, or DICE -- to work the exact same stretches of interstate.
Humphreys County and the town of Kingston Springs provide officers -- and Cheatham County allows DICE to work in its jurisdiction -- in exchange for a share of the money.
"Everything's paid through seizures and fines," Chandler said.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "So if these officers out on the interstate don't come up with cash, then they might lose their jobs?"
"Well, it's a possibility, yes," Chandler answered.
Out on I-40, interdiction officers have a choice: Conventional wisdom is that the drugs come in from Mexico on the eastbound side. But the money goes back on the west.
While both agencies have made some big drug cases, we spotted both the 23rd and DICE staging time and time again with their backs to the drug side.
In fact, a review of daily activity sheets kept by the 23rd discovered that, when officers noted the location of their traffic stops, there were 10 times as many stops on the money side.
UPDATE: A review of case summaries supplied by DICE shows that the entire team made one drug seizure -- 602 grams of heroin -- from Interstate 40 in all of 2010. Those officers arrested six people during stops on I-40 during that same 12-month period -- four of them on fugitive warrants, not for drug possession. Most DICE cases were seizures of money in the westbound lanes.
"We want both sides of the road worked," Chandler insisted.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "It looks like that they are not concerned about stopping the drugs, they just want the money."
"That's what it looks like," the chief admitted.
Is that the case?
"That shouldn't be the case, but that's what it looks like."
Scott Bullock with the Institute for Justice said that "it shows that the police are really focusing, not on trying to get the drugs, not on trying to enforce the drug laws and stop that flow throughout the country. They're focused on getting the money."
And it can lead to turf wars.
After DICE got a $1 million seizure last fall, police video shows that a DICE officer suddenly found himself being blocked by a unit from the 23rd while watching the westbound lanes. Within minutes, five units from the 23rd were lined up in a show of force.
As a result, the two agencies had to work out a "letter of agreement," specifying who would have priority on the westbound lanes on which days.
Then, there's a 2008 video where a unit from the 23rd cuts in front of a DICE unit on a stop, prompting this heated exchange:
23rd DTF Officer: "Leave me the f***k alone!" DICE Officer: "Let me tell you something..." 23rd DTF Officer: "Punk!" DICE Officer: "You ever come up [on] me and try to wreck me out again, it will be your last time. You understand?"
Chandler called those disputes "ridiculous."
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "You've got two agencies fighting to stop the same cars."
"Competition can be a good thing," the chief said, "as long as you don't violate any person's rights."
But they're competing for the money that they can take off of drivers.
"Well, they are competing to do their jobs is what they are competing for," he insisted.
It's a job that, Bullock said, has lost its way. "Law enforcement is supposed to be about getting the bad guys. It's not supposed to be about making money."
Law enforcement authorities say their goal is to hit the drug traffickers in the pocketbook.
But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.
Highway robbery is what this is....so if you have out of state plates, dont come through Tennessee with any extra cash at all.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates has some incredible police video you've got to see. In it, an officer tells a suspected drug courier that he can walk -- if he coughs up his cash. "Hey, I'm not asking you if you have knowledge about it, and I won't ask you if you have knowledge about it. Do you understand me? ... All I'm asking you is, where's the money?"
The Dragonater gets carjacked and mugged by Fed Park Ranger on Foothills Parkway as the Great Smoky Mountains burned
UPDATE: "Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 05/12/2011 the mandate for this case hereby issues today: COSTS: None" United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed June 06, 2011
"We do not need officers breaking the laws we hire them to enforce." -Norman Fernandez, attorey at law, BikerLawyer.net
Isn't that a Maxim of Law?
The 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals disagrees, claiming police are exempt from both state and federal law, exempt from discovery, and exempt from Local Rules in Blount County, Tennessee, though no judge signed the opinion in my case (many transcripts and briefs are missing from PACER, along with exhibits never sent to the appellate clerk, oral argument denied):
36 CFR § 4.2 State law applicable. (a) Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of vehicles within a park area are governed by State law. State law that is now or may later be in effect is adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part. (b) Violating a provision of State law is prohibited.
Tennessee Code 55-8-108. Authorized emergency vehicles. (a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated. (c) (1) The exemptions granted under subsection (b) to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall only apply when such vehicle is making use of audible and visual signals. (Class C misdemeanor = 30 days in jail)
Fed Park Rangers and US Dept of Justice destroyed its video and audiotapes of its false arrest of The Dragonater
Here's undercover video of the same Park Ranger Keith Gad on Foothills Parkway:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion that police dashcam video cannot be used by the defense when it proves the defense is innocent. Same as in my case on Foothills Parkway, where Park Rangers and fed prosecutors conspired with fed "judges" to destroy video and audio evidence.
An example of the quality of "law enforcement" in Blount County, Tennessee:
"I'll burn your house down, set your dog on fire and there won�t be a member of your family left, do you understand me? I won't hire it done, I will do it myself! Do you understand me?" -Deals Gap Blount County sheriff James Berrong, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Nuchols v. Berrong, No. 04-5645, July 11, 2005
This same Sixth Circuit said sheriff Berrong's admitted death threats to his secretary "did not shock the conscience of the Court".
"Please read the enclosure that presents the facts by someone involved in the investigation of this tragic accident. I grew up knowing Sen. Koella for the last 30 years. The bill has been passed and signed. There is NOTHING you can do to change that, and if you choose not to come to Tennessee, we will be better off without you." -Senator Bill Clabough, American Motorcyclist Association, American Motorcyclist magazine, Greg Harrison Column: Contemptible, September 1999
Tennessee renames Pellissippi Parkway Interstate I-140 to honor convicted hit-and-run killer of a sportbiker in Blount County
"In the 21st Century, everything about the U.S. government is a fraud." -Wesley Hoyt, former prosecutor and attorney for Cyndi Steele, re U.S. vs Edgar Steele attorney at law, Rick Adams Radio Show, 18 May 2011
Conviction in fed court is easy when the feds forge audio tapes, destroy audio tape evidence, steal all a defendant's money so he can't hire a lawyer, grant immunity to the thief who stole $50,000 from him, appoint a drunken public defender who tells him not to testify, deny him the right to bail to prepare his defense, deny him the right to attend his own bail hearings, threaten to arrest his wife, lie to his wife, deny his wife the right to testify, deny his expert witnesses the right to testify, grant immunity to the real killers, etc. Why it's critical to tape record or video tape all your conversations with police and govt employees, and to never comply with voluntary requests by police:
In this case, Jew Bill Maher's cousin is a terrorist bomber assassin who frames innocent people in conspiracy to falsify audiotapes with fed judges, US DOJ, FBI, ADL Mossad and the incestuous homosexual pedophile kosher SPLC. The real assassins have immunity from prosecution for attempted murder of Cindy Steele and felony theft from Edgar Steele. Edgar Steele has appeared on virtually every national TV network news program and been interviewed repeatedly for Today, Good Morning America, The Early Show, Fox News, Dateline, NBC Nightly News, Court TV (which devoted a full week of broadcasting to one of Edgar’s trials recently), Geraldo and CNN, as well as countless local television news programs and radio talk shows throughout America, in connection with both his writing and the high-profile cases he has handled.
Two more examples of falsified video and deletion of audio evidence:
JusticeForJerryAndJoeKane.com - Deputy sheriffs whacked by Mexican Mafiya in West Memphis in retaliation for $2-million drug seizure, so police death squad whacks innocent bystanders in Walmart parking lot, then "reenacts" video "evidence" to avoid wrongful death lawsuit and homicide charges.
All charges dismissed against accused Redlight Camera Sniper, after a Knox deputy confessed to the crime in Knoxville TN.
"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid." -Colonel Paul Revere, sworn affidavit: Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775 (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, kicking off the American Revolutionary War at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer
The Green Dragon pub was the "Headquarters of the American Revolution" where the Boston Tea Party was planned and Paul Revere planned his ride to start the Revolutionary War
Can you say Internal Passport? Can you say Right to Travel? Passengers are routinely arrested and convicted of drunk driving,when a vehicle is registered in the passenger's name. Do you enjoy TSA requiring you to have a driver license to fly as a passenger, then grabbing your mangina?
Behold the perfect example of a discriminatory Texas motorcycle bill:
HB 2470 Author: Phillips Last Action: 05/05/2011 S Received from the House Caption: Relating to the regulation of sport bikes and certain other motorcycles.
1) Definition of a sportbike Section 541.201, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (18-a) to read as follows: (18-a) "Sport bike" means a motorcycle: (A) that is optimized for speed, acceleration, braking, and maneuverability on paved roads; (B) that has a light weight frame; (C) on which the rider leans forward over the gas tank; and (D) is not a touring, cruiser, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle.
2) The passenger on a sportbike is defined as one who is 18 or older with an "M" endorsement SECTION 4. Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Section 545.4161 to read as follows: Sec. 545.4161. OPERATION OF SPORT BIKE. (a) In addition to the requirements and prohibitions under Section 545.416, an operator may not carry another person on a sport bike unless the sport bike is designed to carry more than one person, and unless: (1) the operator: (A) is at least 18 years of age; and (B) has had a Class M license for at least two years; or (2) the other person: (A) is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class M license; or (B) is a motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor certified under Chapter 662. (b) An operator of a sport bike shall ensure that a passenger on the sport bike complies with all department regulations relating to motorcycle safety.
3) The addition of requisite 'safety' equipment to include: Sec. 547.803. SPORT BIKE SAFETY EQUIPMENT. If a sport bike is designed to carry more than one person, the sport bike must be equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by a passenger on the sport bike.
4) Defining Motorcycle to include Sportbike SECTION 7. Section 661.001(1), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows: (1) "Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle designed to propel itself with not more than three wheels in contact The term includes a sport bike, as defined by Section 541.201.
Did you follow all that? In a nutshell, this bill would effectively make it illegal to carry a passenger on a sportbike only (not a cruiser, touring bike, enduro, etc.), without at least two years as a licensed motorcyclist over the age of 18. Can you say discrimination against sportbikes?
This bill, also known as "Malorie's Law" (named after a young woman who, you guessed it, died while riding pillion behind an 18-year-old sportbiker) is now creating attention and controversy amongst Texas motorcyclists, but perhaps too late. It quickly made it through committee and already passed the Texas House almost unanimously. It's now on its way to the Texas Senate, where it could be passed for the governor to sign into law.
Needless to say, this is just another stupid, unenforceable law that'll only serve to hinder and hassle law-abiding riders.
Late in the game, many of us in Texas are sending letters to our senators. Here's mine: Dear Senator Seliger:
Please vote against HB 2470, the discriminatory bill known as "Malorie's Law", which recently passed the Texas House.
HB 2470 attempts to discriminate against a specific type of motorcycle genre ("sportbike") in reaction to the death of a young woman who was unfortunately killed in a crash while riding pillion on one.
The bill would prohibit riders of sportbikes (a term which is effectively impossible to accurately define legally) who have been licensed for less than two years to carry a passenger. This law would not apply to the riders of so-called "cruiser", "touring", "standard" or "enduro" motorcycles, and is therefore highly discriminatory.
Furthermore, all licensed riders in Texas are already required to complete and pass a safety course which includes a classroom module on carrying passengers. In its discrimination, "Malorie's Law" would also be somewhat redundant.
Bad facts lead to bad laws, and emotional legislation instigated by grieving parents is often to blame. Please oppose HB 2470.
I oppose this proposed law primarily because it infringes my rights as a sportbiker. It singles me out as a bad apple simply because of the bike-type I ride, and it makes me subject to closer police scrutiny for no reason. It is discrimination. It's the same thing as saying, "My mom was killed by a red-headed guy, so I now want a law to put restrictions on red-headed guys being allowed out of their homes."
These coercive, aggressive actions do motorcycling, and the intent of law, a huge disservice. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the bike type associated with the most injuries and fatalities is *not* sportbikes, it is cruisers. This bill chases phantoms, and in the process it does nothing more than muddying the waters for law enforcement, while making motorcycle licensing more expensive and complicated for those of us who bother with doing it right.
Most importantly, I believe this law would result in more pursuits, more singling-out and discrimination against an already demonized motorcycle type, and impossible enforcement from a practical standpoint. I talked to a retired cop about this bill, and he said he wouldn't even allow his squads to use the law as it's now drafted, because there's no reliable way in the field to determine when a motorcycle endorsement was issued.
