National Liberty Alliance - Citizen Grand Juries

[grixit]

If the filing somehow avoids being tossed out entirely, it would never bounce up. But it might bounce down. In fact this would be perfect for a reunion event on Night Court.

Sov: I demand you remove that fringed flag!

Harry: You don't like my fringe? I sewed it on myself!

Pros: And it's lovely, Sir.

Def: Stop sucking up!

Bull: I knitted a flag once-- but i made the stars upside down.

[LightinDarkness]

More dispatches from crazyville. The NLA has sent "notice" to every judge in New York that the judges/clerks which previously denied their paperwork are engaged in a RICO conspiracy and that the new york judges have a duty to do something about it. If they don't respond in a week, the NLA promises to issue indictments against all of them.

As usual, the volumes of gibberish being produced by this group is quite amazing.

Letter to NY Judges: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/ ... Judges.pdf

They are also, of course, directing sheriffs to arrest anyone who tries to stop them from their big June 2 court appearance. A court appearance, you will recall, which isn't actually on the docket because they basically filed some gibberish paperwork about removing their case (which was dismissed) to district court. So they will be showing up and demanding everyone be arrested when the court tells them they are nuts on June 2.

As usual, I can't help but wonder how far the courts are going to go to let them do this stuff - we seem to be getting very close to arrests for counterfeit legal processes, if we are not there yet.

[wserra]

I do like their (p 3, ¶5) "prima fascia action at law". I think it has something to do with plastic surgery. Or architecture.

And then there's (p 3, ¶8) the account of how "our report of a crime was reported to Judge Mott", but nothing happened. They obviously fail to realize that nothing will happen until they report the report of their report.

[Pottapaug1938]

I also like the fact that they are such Constitutional Experts that they are familiar with the crime of Misprision of Treason, while remaining wholly ignorant of how the Constitution defines treason.

[LPC]

I also like the fact that they are such Constitutional Experts that they are familiar with the crime of Misprision of Treason, while remaining wholly ignorant of how the Constitution defines treason.

I used to think it was mere ignorance, but now I'm wondering if it's not more fanciful. Look at the first "quote" from the Constitution:

The core of that contract, which cannot be altered, is expressed in Article IV Section 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion [of rights];”

(Bolding added.)

If in their minds (and I use the term loosely) a denial or infringement of rights is the same as an invasion, then it's an easy jump to equate denial or infringement of rights with "levying War" (which is part of the definition of treason in Article III, section 3).

Of course, that interpretation allows the very kinds of prosecutions that the authors of the Constitution were obviously trying to prevent, but to understand that would require some rational thinking, and so is completely out of the question.

So I was going to stop reading with the "[of rights]" howler, but kept going until I got to the bottom of the page and saw "Page 1 of 11," and decided one was enough.

[Lambkin]

I do like their (p 3, ¶5) "prima fascia action at law". I think it has something to do with plastic surgery. Or architecture.

Courtroom Rolfing.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I do like their (p 3, ¶5) "prima fascia action at law". I think it has something to do with plastic surgery. Or architecture.

Yeah, it's got to be uPVC trim for the windows and doors of your law offices.

[Dezcad]

The June 2 hearing has been cancelled.

U.S. District Court
Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 6.1] (Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-00552-GTS-TWD

Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury v. Lippman et al
Assigned to: Judge Glenn T. Suddaby
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks
Case in other court: NYS Supreme Court, Greene County, 14-00384
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act
Date Filed: 05/09/2014
Date Terminated: 05/23/2014
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff

Date Filed # Docket Text
05/09/2014 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from New York State Supreme Court, Greene County, case number 14-0384 (Filed over the counter, in Albany, NY with no fee paid and no IFP application filed) filed by Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
05/09/2014 2 NOTICE of FILE ON DEMAND by Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury (tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
05/16/2014 3 PRO SE HANDBOOK and NOTICE mailed on 5/16/14 (tab) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
05/21/2014 4 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 5/21/2014. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. mail] (Entered: 05/21/2014)
05/21/2014 5 Letter Motion from Plaintiff Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury requesting a hearing be scheduled for 6/2/2014 submitted to Judge Suddaby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s) - Bill of Information, # 3 Exhibit(s) - Index, # 4 Memorandum of Law)(amt) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
05/23/2014 6 ORDER Directing Administrative Closure with Opportunity to Comply with Filing Fee Requirement. ORDERED that if plaintiff desires to pursue this action, it must so notify the Court WITHIN 30 DAYS of the filing of this Order and either (1) pay the filing fee for civil actions; or (2) submit a completed and signed in forma pauperis application by an individual;... ORDERED that no hearing will be scheduled for June 2, 2014; plaintiff's letter motion requesting a hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/23/2014. (lah)[copy of order and blank IFP application mailed to plaintiff's address on docket] (Entered: 05/23/2014)

[notorial dissent]

Well, that went well, so much for the great hearing on Jun 2. Wonder if they'll indict the federal court next?

[LaVidaRoja]

Are they likely to show up and attempt to force a hearing anyway? That could be amusing for those of us watching from afar. Not so funny for the parties involved.

[LightinDarkness]

I would bet that they will still show up, John (the leader of this scam) is determined that if he just shoves this gibberish in front of a judge they will flee and give his sov'runs everything they want. I would expect a circus on June 2.

[notorial dissent]

Scarily LiD, I think you are right. This idiot, and make no mistake, he is an idiot, really is beginning to believe his own PR and fantasy. The way he is carrying on, I think he has fallen for his own fantasy, and it may just come back to bite him in the ass this time. The 2nd of June could be real entertaining.

[grixit]

I wonder if real NY judges are as easily exasperated as the ones on Law and Order.

[LightinDarkness]

I wonder if real NY judges are as easily exasperated as the ones on Law and Order.

We may find out. The NLA is at it...again. This time, they have issued another "writ of mandamus" commanding all the NY judges to respond to their accusations of treason and let them into the court houses to run their kangaroo courts...or else:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/ ... -27-14.pdf

Its yet another hilarious read. I am beginning to think John (the NLA leader) is just googling random writs and writing them because he think it makes him sound smart or something.

[notorial dissent]

I think you're right. It isn't like he understands what any of it means, or at least that is what it appears to me like.

Gee, and all this time I wasn't aware that a grand jury was a tribunal or could issue writs, or anything else for that matter, let alone as a state institution had authority over the Federal Courts as well. I guess you learn something new all the time. Or NOT!!!!

[LPC]

I am beginning to think John (the NLA leader) is just googling random writs and writing them because he think it makes him sound smart or something.

It's not the language of the writs that makes him "sound smart or something," but the use of Gothic fonts.

(Which I tried to recreate here in order to be a smartass, but haven't been able to in the phpBB/BBCode environment. The [face=][/face] tags don't seem to work.)

[LightinDarkness]

This is getting more hilarious (or sad, depending on your view) by the day. I highly advise everyone read the latest gibberish from John and the NLA if you want a good chuckle, its short:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/ ... 0error.pdf

To summarize the latest events, from what I can get from Monday's NLA conference call:
- John tried to file his gibberish "writ of mandamus" in the district court in person but the clerk wanted (of course) the filing fee. John informed the clerk that he was "We The People" and thus didn't have to pay anything.
- The clerk in question, who probably thought John was crazy (spoiler: he is!) said that he could file pro se if he wanted but not as an organization (the "unified common law grand jury.").
- John then told the clerk that he was ordering her to file it via his magical writ of mandamus, and the clerk informed John that this was lovely but he needed to pay the filing fee.
- In response to this John sent the district court another gibberish mandamus early last week telling them they had to hear his case, and then when he checked today the clerk informed him (surprise!) he couldn't just set his own court date and he would need to pay the filing fee.
- Now, John has filed his latest gibberish writ, the language of which you just have to read the above link to appreciate the absurdity.

And now the NLA has formally threatened a district judge to sign their gibberish writ ("within 8 days of receipt") or "we the Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury shall assemble at the courthouse to hear your cause and will determine for you the consequences of your action."

I am fairly sure that is a direct threat, and I think John may be getting a call from the FBI soon.

[notorial dissent]

Stupidity, the gift of comedy that just keeps on giving. One thing about it, if they all show up at the court house, it'll save the marshals a lot of time rounding them up. They don't take this sort of thing very well, and Glen may just get to find out how a real court and court proceeding works, from a front row vantage point.

[ArthurWankspittle]

He didn't try "We The People " in forma pauperis?

[wserra]

28 USC §1915(a) pertains to prisoners of which (sic) clearly we are not.

That may change.

“Plaintiff should not be charged fees, or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief” -- Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43).

No such language appears in the opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a natural man or woman is entitled [right] to relief for free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in the Union -- 2 Black 620, see also Crandell (sic) v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35.

No, it hasn't, not in the sense they wish it to mean. The actual language: "[A citizen] has a right to free access to its seaports, through which all the operations of foreign trade and commerce are conducted, to the subtreasuries, the land offices, the revenue offices, and the courts of justice in the several states, and this right is in its nature independent of the will of any state over whose soil he must pass in the exercise of it." Crandall was the first of the real "right to travel" cases. "Free access" in this context doesn't mean "without charge", it means that a state cannot favor its own citizens in supplying governmental functions over citizens of other states. Reading the whole opinion makes this perfectly clear, which is why nitwits like "Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury" paraphrase and take from context.

BTW, anybody know who's actually signing these things? I see the same illegible scribble on each signature line, with no printed name. I wonder why that is?