"It's usually just ambition that puts them into it--and like any group of people selected for ambition and nothing else, they turn out to be a pretty bad lot. Like mandarins in China, colonial administrators in the British Empire, lawyers in old North America ... --individually there are decent people who do some good, but as a class they are amoral, vicious leeches with a good cover story."

[First party:] "You know, ... as soon as you do away with the concept that the individual has a right to be free of any burdens, any costs, that he or she hasn't voluntarily agreed to--no matter what the supposed benefits--you justify any and every system that fits your whimsy and justify it in the name of the good of the race, or the good of the nation, or the public good, or other sophistries of villains."
[Second party:] "As you know, ... the a priori assumption of individual self-ownership--which is necessary to such a proposition--is one I have never seen a reason to make."
[First Party:] "It's an assumption ... that anyone is blind to at his own risk--and possibly over his own dead body."

"People who work to weaken the foundations of their own civilization just for the sake of money or power are sick, no matter how hard they protest and orate about being on the side of [justice]. Using tricks to [cheat] someone out of what's due them has nothing to do with [justice]."

[the problem:] "You know, nobody starts out to be a villain.... But being powerful can turn you villainous. Because there's nothing to stop you from doing whatever you want to do. Except for something inside you...."
[a remedy:] "...But I also think you have to confront him with your knowledge and make him understand that you won't accept any excuses for behavior like that. Don't nag. Don't carp. State your case firmly and clearly, then shut up. Don't negotiate. You have to mark out an absolute limit he'll always know is there. And stick with it. You always have to know it's there, too."

"We're going to educate you bastards, we're going to teach you right from wrong. Because nobody else ever did. And when you know, when you understand all you've done, when you're living with it every lousy day, then we're not going to kill you."

In the later 1990's, I met folks teaching Home Rule and Constitutional Law from the layman's viewpoint, but soundly based on still-standing Supreme Court decisions. What a shock! Those classes drastically contrasted with everything I had learned anywhere in any school and with how I had been living my life. The moderator maintained that we all have been deliberately dumbed-down, mis-educated, and are now 'third-generation trained-ignorant'.
I intensified my own legal research to become less ignorant and to explain to myself the apparent inconsistencies between what the black-letter law said and how 'the courts' behaved.

Neither the Law of these United States of America nor of California requires that I have any moral or legal obligation to 'do business' with crooks after I discover they are crooks. My obligation then becomes to arrest the crooks or to defend myself and my property against them to the fullest extent allowed by the Law.

I believe that one non-violent way left to restore our Constitutional Republic is to use the current CODES to invalidate themselves, maybe section-by-section, until the government knowingly returns to scrupulously following the Constitution-as-written and the Bill of Rights-as-written for these united States of America.

Once I was a happy, clueless, 'REGISTERED VOTER', naively believing that I was a 'U.S. CITIZEN'.
It appears that by registering as a 'REGISTERED VOTER' in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, I told the County Registrar on a legal "Voter Registration Affidavit" that I was not one of the People of California, but was a 'U.S. CITIZEN' (whatever that means legally), RESIDENT (whatever that means legally) in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (whereever that entity may be). I have since found older Code sections dating to the 1940's which suggest that the format of the Voter Registration forms have been systematically tampered with over the years to generate this result.

Since I could not determine from the @75 non-identical definitions in THE UNITED STATES CODE which 'UNITED STATES' I was claiming to be a 'CITIZEN' of, I cancelled my 'VOTER REGISTRATION AFFIDAVIT' because I could no longer be certain that I was not lying on it.
It took me two trips to the COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE (they really did not want me to cancel that affidavit).
I stopped claiming to be a 'U.S. CITIZEN' (whatever that means legally: UNITED STATES ? / UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST ? / UNBELIEVABLY STUPID ? / UNCOMPREHENDING SUCKER ?).
My alternative legal status in California would be to claim to be a 'qualified elector', but I may not qualify since I don't own land in California.

My Research:

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24.
A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (T. H. Flood and Company, Chicago, Ill., 1893) (emphasis added).

Lawful. The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not #########, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.
See also Legal; Legitimate; Valid."
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition (13th Reprint, 1998), pp. 885-886 (emphasis added).

I started developing Administrative Notices (called 'Official Notices' in the CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE) in 1999. My perceived need for an Administrative (Official) Notice was that the courts and the Legislature seem to have decided that almost every State 'actor' is immune from the civil (but not criminal) consequences of his/her actions so long as he is acting in 'good faith, in his 'official capacity', or in blissful ignorance [ignorance-of-the-law IS an excuse if you're on the public payroll].
However, once I tell the State 'actor' at the first contact by a written or oral Notice what the law says; what their behavior is supposed to be to obey the law; and what the penalties are if they misbehave and they then misbehave anyway; their actions become willful violation(s) of a known law/statute/code/regulation/duty. They forfeit the presumptions of acting 'in good faith' and 'within their official capacity' and become personally liable (civilly and/or criminally) for the reasonably-foreseeable consequences of their actions.

From: The Serpent's Shadow, Mercedes Lackey, (Daw Books, Inc. (paper), New York, N.Y., 2002), p. 151:

"I---" He gritted his teeth again; she heard them grinding. "I beg that you should accept me as a disciple."
"And what will you offer me for the privilege?" she asked, again surprising him. "What, why should you be astonished? What I have is of value. Every Master is entitled to a fee for taking an Apprentice; the difference between me and those you have sought out in the past is that I am honest about requiring that fee, and I have far more to teach you than they have. You have so far given me no indication that you have any intention of making an exchange of value for value."
His indignation was evident in every movement of his body--but he reached into his pocket for his wallet before she stopped him with an abrupt gesture of rejection.
"Money? I think not...," she said sharply. "What need have I of the dross of your money? ... You must offer me something better than your abominable English pounds and pence."

Your 'fee' for visiting here is an honest and diligent attempt to understand the following information. Your level of ignorance does not automatically make me a 'wacko'; it just makes you more-ignorant than I am. One remedy for ignorance is study.

From Uncommon Justice, Terry Devane; (Berkley Books (paper), New York, 2002), p. 316:

[first party:] "Then what's that you're reading?"
[second party:] "An appellate case, but I'm just kind of browsing. ... At that big firm, you did most of your research with a computer, am I right?"
[first party:] "Through a computer, accessing on-line databases."
[second party:] "Whatever. You typed in 'find me X,' and then the screen shows the information. ... But if you didn't ask the right question, you wouldn't get the right answer."
[first party:] "Well, no. Of course not."
[second party:] "So, okay. When I don't know what I'm supposed to even be asking, I pick up a book with answers in it, and I browse. And sometimes, just sometimes, I find an answer that tells me what question I should be asking. Understand?"

Some basics of California law:

Legal mischief mis-using fictitious NAMES:

Fictions of Law: (legal make-believe)

Presumptions: (when you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer.)

Individual and United States sovereignty:

California waives its soveriegn immunity:

Direct Challenge to Authority: [Use this on any supposed State employee!]

Oaths of Office are required in California:

Oaths required on official documents:

Notice concerning California Public Officials:

The nature of the new, unified, "Superior Courts" in California:

The statutory requirements of a court of record:

De facto (fake) officers and judges:

The 'judge' may be only a magistrate:

My response to a Summons to Jury Duty:

Commercial Crimes?!:

Maxim of law: Impossibility:

The name(s) of the Nevada County courts:

---

Some law tools for private people:

If I should ever have to deal with a "licensed" 'Attorney', whether 'assisting' or opposing me, here is my first step:
Challenge the qualifications of a self-proclaimed Attorney in California:

Since a person acting *in pro per* has to do his/her own research, drafting of documents, and court presentations, everything I do in preparing a case is my own work-product as counsellor-in-fact and should be confidential:
Protection for a pro per's work product:

Notice of Special Appearance: [Mail it to the opposing Attorney, not to the court.]

Notice of Judge's duty to take Judicial Notice:

Notice of the requirement for a Court Reporter:

Criminal Discovery:

Discovery to determine the qualifications of a supposed Peace Officer: (Pitchess Motion).

In a California civil case, one can demand a Bill of Particulars:

A Sample Demurrer:

Notice that 'Assistance of Counsel' is NOT being 'Represented' by an Attorney:

Motion to Dismiss (MTD) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

Declaration supporting MTD:

Memorandum of Points and Authorities (MPA) supporting MTD [assuming 'court' is an administrative agency]:

MPA supporting MTD [assuming 'court' functioning in Admiralty ]:

MPA supporting MTD [assuming 'court' is a military tribunal]:

Documentation of the United States flag bearing gold fringe and displayed on a flagstaff with cords and tassels:
Army Regulation 840-10. Heraldic Activities: Flags, Guidons, Streamers, Tabards, and Automobile and Aircraft Plates:

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, trial of civilians by a military tribunal is still prohibited in these United States of America.
Ex Parte Milligan (1866):

Challenge the qualifications of a District Attorney:

Disqualify a purported California District Attorney (or a Public Defender) for Conflict of Interest:

English IS the official language of California:

Administrative Proof-of-Service-by-mail template:

Statutory Proof of Service by Mail:

---

Dealing with the CALIFORNIA DMV:

The public's right to use the public highways is affirmed in California case law:

The origin of the 'driver's license':

Notice to a purported 'C.H.P. Officer':

Proof-of-Service to go with the previous Notice:

The 'title' to a vehicle under the California Commercial Code is the Manufacturer's Certificate/Statement of Origin:

If I'm the 'registered' ('equitable') owner of my vehicle, who is the 'legal owner' of my vehicle, and how did that happen?

Vehicle Registration in California:
Vehicle Registration:

---

Use of the California Public Records Act:

Memorandum of Points & Authorities supporting PRA request:

---

Dealing with THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE:

My latest FOIA request to deal with an IRS CP-71:

FOIA request to deal with an IRS CP-71:

Personnel complaint against a bogus IRS 'Problem Resolution Officer':

Request to the Secretary of the Treasury for a Determination of Status:
[probably should have gone to Commissioner of Internal Revenue].

IRS letter (2001)

Dealing with THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD:

Public Notice concerning the FTB:

FTB's only properly-adopted regulations supporting taxing authority for Personal Income Tax:

The federal Victory Tax as administered in California:

Information Practices Act Request:

Notice of Duty of FTB Disclosure Officer:

FTB information to request under IPA:

2001 case [I won again; FTB gave up on the administrative level March 28, 2002]: Formal Protest:

Statement of Facts supporting Protest:

Memorandum of Points and Authorities supporting Protest:

Response to FTB 4744A MEO letter:

Attorney Notice applied to FTB:

Discovery Request:

Courtesy of Ballmer v. FTB, I actually get some IPA information from FTB; so I refuted some of FTB's presumptions:
IPA follow-up:

[Administrative Review of IPA follow-up:] [Administrative Review of IPA follow-up, part 2:]

Second IPA Request to FTB:

Public Records Act Request to FTB:

---

Using the Federal FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:

FOIA Memorandum of Points and Authorities: [tailored for IRS]

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOIA:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Letter:

---

I keep coming back to certain basics from many different research angles. Maybe I should pay attention, hmmm?
The misuse of the SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER assigned in a name similar to mine:

Is my bank signature card a contract with The Secretary of the Treasury?:

Why FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are not worth a Dollar:

---

Gratuitous humor:

My salute to an American cultural icon: I wanna be just like Barbie

My salute to the politically-aware Activist
Since I can't stand self-styled Activists, a bit of satire.

A rousing marching song, just for my 'Save-the-World-from-itself' Activist friends:
Sung to, roughly, the tune of "We're Off to See the Wizard".

Here comes the WAAA-mbulance:
Relief from the semi-terminal Whiner.

Guys, if you work in a workplace, you NEED to know this:
[DON'T read this one; it's BAD for you; I'm WARNING you.]

The High School Teachers' Toolbox:

Afraid you might think too much? Help is available. Contact Thinkers Anonymous!:
[Unfortunately, not my work.]

"Ode to the Spell Checker" (dyslexia rules!):
[Also, not my work.]

This is really stupid; but ... hey, what the heck:
[Not my work,either.]

And some real, live, Cowboy Poetry:

"Cowboy Poetry":

"Lucky":

"Cowboy Feelings":

"Thay's No P in Cowboy":

---

The following is my older work. It is rougher and may contain more legal errors.

---

The next-to-last time I was called for Jury Duty, I sent the court this Affidavit:

---

Why I might want to withdraw from "SOCIAL SECURITY":

[Does the law require me to have a Social Security Number?:] [More anti-enumeration folks:]

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION maintains that I cannot withdraw from SOCIAL SECURITY; yet it has a standardized Form for doing so: Form SSA-521.

I will not consider using Form SSA-521 unless and until I understand exactly what I may be giving up and/or gaining.

There is also a Form SSA-L996 to request an exact photocopy of my original application. (In 2003, someone e-mailed me a copy of the 1980 version of Form L996.)

---

A minor incident with major implications:

Personnel Complaint for denial of my Right of Access to the courts:

The legal support for the above letter:

Notice that taking a pocketknife into STATE OF CALIFORNIA-controlled buildings is legal.

Notice that 'access to the courts' is a Constitutionally-protected right:

The 'Official' Response by the County Counsel:

My subsequent Complaint against County Counsel:

I redirected the County Counsel Complaint to the Board of Supervisors.

The point of the whole foregoing exercise is that one more similar incident will establish a pattern of "willful disregard for the constitutional rights of its citizens" in my county, then:

Remedy for a county's "willful disregard for the constitutional rights of its citizens":
Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 1997), mod. & reh. den. 137 F.3d 1372, cert. den. 525 U.S. 819, 142 L.Ed.2d 46.

---

A Legal History of THE CALIFORNIA CODES:

The California Codes were derived from The New York State (Field) Codes:

General Law vs. 'Statutory law':
THE CALIFORNIA CODES are NOT General Law:

'Persons', the 14th Amendment, and The Civil Rights Act of 1866:

'Public Policy' judicially defined in California:

What are the statutory requirements for a 'Peace Officer' in California?

Legal consideration of the California flag:

Dealing with the California DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION:

---

Attorneys

Misconduct of the State Bar of California (1999):
It's Enough to Make you BAR(F):

Use the Commission on Judicial Performance to 'debench' a judge:

If judges want to behave like the historic English Star Chamber, we should treat them historically appropriately: abolish their 'courts'.
A history of the English Star Chamber:

---

Birth Certificate

Birth Certificate inquiry:

Birth Certificate Appeal:

---

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION:

Transcript of my 1998 Appeal Hearing before THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION:
[FTB withdrew its claim.]

The Transcript of my S.B.E. Appeal Hearing had major reporter's errors in it.
My letter to correct the Transcript: [Probably should have gone directly to the Reporter.]

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD:

The entire course of my 2000 FTB case [I didn't pay @$1,500 that I didn't owe.] I may have overargued this, but I didn't know that at the time:

Formal Protest of FTB's 'Notice of Proposed Assessment'.

Affidavit to support Protest:

Discovery Request:

Discovery, Request for Admissions:

Discovery, Request for Documents:

Memorandum of Points and Authorities on Due Process and Discovery:

Pre-hearing Notices: [FTB ignored this.]

FTB Oral Hearing transcript

FTB's pre-determination letter:

The FTB NOTICE OF ACTION:

---

[To FTB: (1999)] [From FTB: (2000)]

[To FTB No. 2:] [From FTB No. 2:]

To FTB 3:
From FTB 3:
From FTB 4:

Paul Balmer's case convinced FTB that it would be less expensive to comply, rather than not-comply, with the Information Practices Act.

To FTB 4; Information Practices Act request:
To FTB 5:
To FTB 6:

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE:

To IRS 1:

To IRS 2:

To IRS 3:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:

[IRS FOIA Request No. 1.] [FOIA Appeal No. 1.]

[FOIA Request No. 2.] [FOIA Request No. 2; Notice of Intent to Appeal. (probably unnecessary)]

[FOIA Appeal No. 2.] [Question about FOIA Appeal No. 2. (probably unnecessary)]

[FOIA Request No. 3.] [FOIA Appeal No. 3.]

FOIA Request No. 4.

FOIA Request No. 5. (2001)

---

Courts-martial in California?:

Courts-martial, part 2:

Courts-martial, part 3:

Courts-martial, part 4:

Courts-martial, part 5:

Coram non judice (Federal):
[The 'court' is not a court.]

Demurrer: (stale, probably statutorily defective)

Another Demurrer: (statutorily based)

Non-statutory Plea in Abatement: (maybe legally defective)

Grand Jury Complaint: (stale)

Public Records Access in California.

---

Court

Dealing with court employees who thought I should not access the records from my own court case:

Notice of Denial of Access to Court Records:

Denial of Access, part 2:

Denial of Access, part 3:

---

D.M.V:

[First Letter to DMV.] [From DMV.]

[To DMV No. 2:] [From DMV No. 2:]

Since I was not co-respond-ing [two parties having mutually satisfactory conversation] with DMV:
My Letter to THE SECRETARY OF THE BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY. [ignored, of course]

From DMV No. 3:

To DMV No. 3.

---

Dealing with a 'NOTICE TO APPEAR' [a traffic citation] from C.H.P.
I requesed an administrative hearing from the local office of C.H.P. They failed to answer my letter, effectively refusing to grant me a meaningful hearing. My appeal for not granting me a hearing in the appropriate time span should have been to THE COMMISSIONER OF C.H.P.:
Administrative Procedures Act Administrative Hearing request to C.H.P.:
[Because C.H.P. failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (even though I didn't know enough then to raise the issue in court), the case was summarily dismissed at court when the "officer" didn't appear.]

---

Odds and ends:

In 1871, Congress created, via (An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia (type 419 in the grey "turn to image" bar), February 21, 1871, XVI Statutes at Large, ch. LXII, p. 419), a corporation [a juridical 'person' or legal fiction] for the governance of The District of Columbia [a physical place] and named it "The District of Columbia". What are the implications if every current "STATE OF ..." of "THE UNITED STTES" is nothing more than a "The District of Columbia" Domestic Corporation? Be aware that there is substantial subsequent legislation which may have affected this info.

Where did the Post Office of these united States of America go?

Investigating the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE:

Public Notice concerning THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE:

Information sent to my local Board of Supervisors: (stale)

My Letter-to-the-Editor on firearms ownership:

Presidential Declarations of the Continuation of Emergency Powers: (stale)

Resources

California Constitution (1849):

Act of Congress to admit California into the Union:

Personal Justice Denied. The Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (1982):
[The legal history of the internment of Japanese-American citizens of these United States of America during World War II.]

Pre-1893 United States Supreme Court cases which were not then available on the Internet:

In America, we suffer from information overload (yes, I know, I'm not really helping on this point.). We have to make our decisions based upon incomplete and/or inaccurate information (relying upon "everybody knows..."; unfortunately, what "everybody knows" is usually WRONG), or to spend time and money verifying (locating and traveling to a resource depository and then finding, reading, understanding, and copying) the original sources, or official copies thereof.

I intend to offer only verifiable information here, information which can be verified from my own experiences (common sense) or from on-paper or other reproduceable sources [I treat Internet information as rumor-subject-to-verification]. Verifiable information would 'hold up in court'.
Misinformation is that which someone believes to be verifiable, but which cannot be found when you go looking for the source. Much Major Media 'product' is misinformation.
Disinformation is that which someone knows to be inaccurate, incomplete, or false; and which that someone still knowingly disseminates. Disinformation also includes lying-by-omission [when some critical piece of information is deliberately left out]. Misinformation and disinformation are usually called 'propaganda' by both those creating and benefiting from them and those receiving them. Much advertising is, by its very nature, propaganda.

I reserve all rights to all my articles presented or linked from here, as my private intellectual property created in the years of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-eight through two thousand and nine; All Rights Reserved; Thomas Murrell Thornhill III.