Jural members of Wyoming

Please feel free to introduce yourselves here. If you are not a member, you may ask to become a member of this state's assembly.
Use the private message system to share private phone numbers and addresses with the coordinator for your state or with the Admin of this forum.
The Admin will connect you with your state coordinator. If your state coordinator sees your introduction in this section the coordinator may contact you through the private message system or the forum email system.
Post Reply
Olschoolcountry
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:36 pm
County: County of Natrona
Your State: Wyoming

Jural members of Wyoming

Post by Olschoolcountry » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:40 pm

Hello folks, I am looking for like minded individuals who would like to chat and start an assembly. Thank you kindly, Frank

User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Oscoda
Your State: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Jural members of Wyoming

Post by Destry » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:32 am

Greetings Frank~

I added you to the Wyoming list. Currently we have 3 contacts for the Wyoming assembly. Nobody has stepped forward to be a coordinator yet. Please join in on the Thursday evening conference calls for now until more contacts for Wyoming join in.

Hawktalker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:50 pm
County: County
Your State: Wyoming

Re: Jural members of Wyoming

Post by Hawktalker » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." -
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942) What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation.
As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder- in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made.
And further, the government must be willing to enter the contractor commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.
This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under "Public Law", which was in consonance with the Constitution, to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".
Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.

Hawktalker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:50 pm
County: County
Your State: Wyoming

Re: Jural members of Wyoming

Post by Hawktalker » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:11 pm

RIGHTS WITHOUT THE POWER TO ENFORCE ARE EMPTY PROMISES

An Affidavit un-rebutted stands as Truth.

affidavit uncontested un-rebutted unanswered [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 1982]

“Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.” [Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 Federal case of Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327]

“Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982]


AFFIDAVIT. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath. Cox v. Stern, 170 Ill. 442, 48 N.E. 906, 62 Am.St.Rep. 385; Hays v. Loomis, 84 Ill. 18. A statement or declaration reduced to writing, and sworn to or affirmed before some officer who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation. Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154, 70 Am.Dec. 326, and In re Breidt, 84 N.J.Eq. 222, 94 A. 214, 216.

affidavit uncontested un-rebutted unanswered - [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 1982] “Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982]


affidavit uncontested un-rebutted unanswered Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433 Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 that “uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as true.”

affidavit uncontested un-rebutted unanswered Morris vs. NCR, 44 SW2d 433 Morris v National Cash Register, 44 SW2d 433: “An Affidavit if not contested in a timely manner is considered undisputed facts as a matter of law.”

Non Rebutted Affidavits are "Prima Facie Evidence in the Case,-- "United States vs. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536-337 (7th Cir. 1981);

"Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) is necessary to make the Prima Facie Case." -- Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22, 1982.

"Uncontested Affidavit taken as true in support of Summary Judgment." -- Seitzer v. Seitzer, 80 Cal. Rptr. 688

"Uncontested Affidavit taken as true in Opposition of Summary Judgment." -- Melorich Builders v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Bernardino County (Serbia) 207 Cal.Rptr. 47 (Cal.App.4 Dist. 1984)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." -- U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.



Acquiesced - consented by default, to agree.

Acquiescence
ACQUIESCENCE, BY ESTOPPEL - [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. (1979), p. 22, 23, Title "Acquiescence, estoppel by." "ESTOPPEL] - Estoppel means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. [Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P. 2d 656, 658].

ACCEPTANCE, SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE - Acceptance by silence. Acceptance of an offer not by explicit words but through the lack of an offeree’s response in circumstances in which the relationship between the offeror and the offeree justifies both the offeror’s expectation of a reply and the offeror’s reasonable conclusion that the lack of one signals acceptance. *Ordinarily, silence does not give rise to an acceptance of an offer, but this exception arises when the offeree has a duty to speak. [Black’s 7th].

ACQUIESCENCE, ESTOPPEL BY - "Acquiescence, estoppel by - injury accruing from one's acquiescence in another's action to his prejudice creates 'estoppel'. [Lebold v. Inland Steel Co., C.C.A. Ill, 125 F 2d 369, 375.] Passive conduct on the part of one who has knowledge of the facts may be basis of estoppel". [Winslow v. Burns, 47 N.M. 29, 132 P 2d 1048, 1050.]

ACQUIESCENCE, ESTOPPEL BY - Estoppel is a bar or impediment which precludes allegation or denial of a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law. It operates to put a party entitled to its benefits in same position as if the thing represented were true". [May v. City of Kearney, 145 Neb 475, 17 N.W. 2d 448, 458." Black's Law Dic-tionary, 5th Ed. (1979), p. 494, Title "Estoppel.]

kb hees
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:03 am
County: Fremont
Your State: Idaho

Re: Jural members of Wyoming

Post by kb hees » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:10 am

Hawktalker
You obviously have a legal mind, or some legal background ...
I find your posts very interesting ... hopefully you posted them somewhere else so that you will be seen by a broader audience ...
but not having the same background ... I am wondering what point you are making with these references ...
I am sure they enter into the topic at hand somewhere, I am just curious where...
Thank you for your response ...
kb

Post Reply

Return to “Wyoming Introductions”