Discussion:
Cheryl Gardner Criminal Court update
(too old to reply)
J.L
2004-04-01 16:13:55 UTC
Permalink
My problem with the group use permit is that I don't think its being
applied fairly. I mean the Supreme Court said that the rule is
constitutional. But that doesn't mean that the government is applying
it properly. Number one they're not giving any guidance as to what
sites would be appropriate for a
Rainbow Gathering. Number 2 the whole thing about Michigan being an
archeological site was very questionable. And another thing is can
they prove that she knew she was attending an "illegal gathering". She
could vey well argue that she just happened to plan a camping trip in
Ottowa National Forest. Even if she knew it was a Rainbow Gathering,
did she know that there were going to be more than 75 people there? If
she was aware of the number of people did she know that it was illegal
to attend such a gathering?
Anyone interested in discussing what pre-trial motions that might be useful
could be reccommended to Cheyrl's atty.?
tell em "it wasn't me"
when the rangers asked me if i had seen the flyer they were passing out
in idaho i told them "yeah, i saw it and thought the rainbows printed it
up on that bright orange paper" hey -- i made the leo laugh...and
believe u me, he was in ticket writing mode, pu that was a close one
they got my plates and i caught them taking a photo of yours truely
does she even know 75 people? can anybelly prove it?
:-)^2
David
2004-04-03 00:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Subsequent to the posting of the court docket, defendant Cheryl Gardner
made a demand for discovery. This was probably done in order to obtain
evidence for use in a pre-trial motion. It remains to be seen, however,
whether the United States Attorney will make a motion to quash.
Landing Light
2004-04-03 13:22:06 UTC
Permalink
David,

There appear to be many points involving this case of mishandling by the
prosecution and of which could cause dismissal of case, or establish
technical cause for dismissal on appeal.

Can an "amicus curiae" brief be filed timely with the court ?

Can anyone file a brief, or only a lawyer ?

Also, the issues involving the complex and unconstitutional
'permit-scheme' might be effectively petitioned before the court in the
brief.

Think so ?

Keepin' on keepin' on,

RBJ
Landing Light
2004-04-03 15:29:35 UTC
Permalink
As to the permit reg., could a jury nullify the reg.in the Cheryl
Gardner case ?

If this is the first such case to be heard by a jury ? If so, let's all
work hard to help win this - it could be at the crossroads of our
future.

WIN, CHERYL, WIN ! ! !

Love 'n huggs,

RBJ

http://community.webtv.net/landinglight/LandingLight
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-03 19:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Lets not forget subject matter juristiction. The feds probably do not
have it and cannot hear the case without it.
Post by Landing Light
As to the permit reg., could a jury nullify the reg.in the Cheryl
Gardner case ?
If this is the first such case to be heard by a jury ? If so, let's all
work hard to help win this - it could be at the crossroads of our
future.
WIN, CHERYL, WIN ! ! !
Love 'n huggs,
RBJ
http://community.webtv.net/landinglight/LandingLight
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Lets not forget subject matter juristiction. The feds probably do not
have it and cannot hear the case without it.
I heard that Cheryl's attorney, against Cheryl's express wishes and
instructions, stood up in court and told the judge that Cheryl would
consent to a trial by magistrate and waive her constitutional rights.
Story goes that Cheryl stood up, and said, "No, your honor, none of
that is true and I will speak for myself. I do not waive my rights and
I demand the right to a trial by a jury of my peers."

Cheryl had to interrupt the attorney that is supposed to defend her
several times to correct the record. Then the attorneys all met in
chambers several times, but Cheryl refused to budge and stood on her
rights.

She now has no attorney.

I think we can all surmise there is no way a jury of peers would
convict on this matter. That is why it is so important to the
government and the lawyers (even the defense) that it be made to appear
that Cheryl has given up her right to a jury. Just more proof that
lawyers are scum. Can you believe that a defense attorney went into
court, and against the wishes of her client began to waive her client's
rights to ensure conviction on a criminal regulation that is
unconstitutional on its face?

I can. I can believe a lawyer is a lawyer and the whole lot of them owe
their allegiance to the BAR brotherhood, not their clients.

Cheryl's attorney resigned. I have a copy of the withdrawal of counsel
right here. In actuality, Cheryl fired her, but the lawyer does not
want that on the record, so Joy Verlinden says there are irreconcilable
differences between them.

Just one more instance of a lawyer hiding the truth. She was fired.

-- Berkano
Carla
2004-04-04 17:43:52 UTC
Permalink
I think your reporting is slightly askew. The choice in these cases at
this juncture, I believe, is whether to appear before the magistrate, or
whether the defendant wants the case heard in federal district court. And
as far as I know, there is no proceding where the judge expressly asks, or
the attorney expressly agrees, for the defendant to "waive (their)
contstitution rights."

I would not be quick to condemn the attorney in this case. Could be that
there is, in fact, no option for a jury trial and that Cheryl is not
willing to listen to reason on this point. Could be that Cheryl is
demanding that her attorney push for something that is not possible. Could
be that Cheryl is not allowing her attorney to do her job. The usual
reason attorneys quit is because their clients behave impossibly.

However, as I don't really trust your presentation of things (I happen to
believe that you overly dramatize the situation), I'll have to wait until
I hear either from David or from Summer Breeze herself.

David, perhaps you can tell us: is there any right to, or even the
possibility of, a jury trial in these cases? And if not, why not? (and in
case you are wondering, I am not trolling for an argument when I ask you
something, I really am looking for information.) Thanks.
Post by Green Gestapo
I heard that Cheryl's attorney, against Cheryl's express wishes and
instructions, stood up in court and told the judge that Cheryl would
consent to a trial by magistrate and waive her constitutional rights.
Story goes that Cheryl stood up, and said, "No, your honor, none of
that is true and I will speak for myself. I do not waive my rights and
I demand the right to a trial by a jury of my peers."
Cheryl had to interrupt the attorney that is supposed to defend her
several times to correct the record. Then the attorneys all met in
chambers several times, but Cheryl refused to budge and stood on her
rights.
She now has no attorney.
I think we can all surmise there is no way a jury of peers would
convict on this matter. That is why it is so important to the
government and the lawyers (even the defense) that it be made to appear
that Cheryl has given up her right to a jury. Just more proof that
lawyers are scum. Can you believe that a defense attorney went into
court, and against the wishes of her client began to waive her client's
rights to ensure conviction on a criminal regulation that is
unconstitutional on its face?
I can. I can believe a lawyer is a lawyer and the whole lot of them owe
their allegiance to the BAR brotherhood, not their clients.
Cheryl's attorney resigned. I have a copy of the withdrawal of counsel
right here. In actuality, Cheryl fired her, but the lawyer does not
want that on the record, so Joy Verlinden says there are irreconcilable
differences between them.
Just one more instance of a lawyer hiding the truth. She was fired.
-- Berkano
David
2004-04-04 18:20:25 UTC
Permalink
In response to Carla:

Misdemeanor offenses which provide for six months or less imprisonment,
such as gathering without a permit, are not subject to a trial by a jury.
What Ms. Gardner may have failed to understand is that by waiving her right
to have her case heard by the magistrate judge, she also waived her right to
appeal the findings of the magistrate to the district judge.

This is the second lawyer Ms. Gardner has had a falling out with. When
she was arrested in California on a bench warrant issued by the U.S.
Distrtrict Court for the Western District of Michigan, for allegedly
skipping her trial in Michigan, and was brought before a magistrate in
Sacramento, she allegedly filed a complaint that her California lawyer
failed to mount a defense for her. Perhaps Ms. Gardner failed to understand
that under the Constitution and federal criminal procedure, a defendant is
tried in the district where the crime occurred. In this case, it is the
Western District of Michigan.
Landing Light
2004-04-04 22:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Then, why did her ticket have "MINNESOTA" printed on the top ?

Then, why was Minnesota scratched-out and "MICHIGAN" written in its
place ?

Then, why has the signature of the issuing officer been blacked-over ?

How come, according to
"Violation NO. F2680168",
it is issued by and in the name of the court itself, not the Forest
Service. (?)

There's more "how come" -

Closer inspection of the ticket reveals that the issuing officer wrote
the ticket in dark and legible hand print; The Officer name - Elkins and
Officer No. , and "offense charged" entries are hardly legible as they
handprinted in a different writing style later, after the original
ticket was issued.


How come there is not a signature of any officer whatsoever; no issuing
officer, no charging officer, no authorized agent, nada.no signature ~
no charge !

The subsequently-handprinted "Offense Charged" entry is non-descriptive
and incomplete, wherein is scripted, (only):

36CFR***

*** three digit width scribble that looks more like :

36CFR/\o/\

So who is it that is charging Cheryl Gardner (?) Even the proseutor
doesn't know.

The charge has been expanded beyond the original citation, in the
court's papers and, conveniently, the original citation is tampered if
not shredded.

What a hoax !

The charge now follows:

Class B Misdemeanor:

Crime: Using and Occupying National Forest System Land Without
Special-Use Authorization.

Statute: 36CFR.261.10(k) and 251.50(a)

Imprisonment and Fine: Not more than 6 months, + not more than $5000
fine

Probation: 5 years

Special Assessment: $10.00

The above-referenced "Statute" did not become effective, as so amended,
until July 3, 2003, as published in "The Federal Register".....Cheryl
Gardner's ticket is dated, 7/10/02. That's "ex post facto" !

There is more. The entire management and wrongful actions in this case
are truly embarrassing even to the bench when they wake up suddenly with
this massive corruption of the court's process in their faces all at
once suddenly, like this:

"HERE! HERE!"

"We've created a monster!"

"HERE! HERE!
David
2004-04-05 01:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
What a hoax !
Statute: 36CFR.261.10(k) and 251.50(a)
The above-referenced "Statute" did not become effective, as so amended,
until July 3, 2003, as published in "The Federal Register" ".....Cheryl
Gardner's ticket is dated, 7/10/02. That's "ex post facto" !
Wrong. If you read more carefully, the sections she is charged with
violating were published in the Federal Register prior to the issuance of
her ticket.
Landing Light
2004-04-05 01:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Right, David, thank you.
Correct that matter about dates.
No ex post facto regarding earlier post.
Apology for mistaken interpretation of info.

Ghandi
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Let 'em have it, Landing Light!

-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:51 UTC
Permalink
The local police towed Cheryl's van and impounded it without cause,
saying they did not know whose van it is.

Interesting, they have a restraining order from Cheryl Gardner which
clearly has her van and plate number on it. But they had no idea who
the van belonged to, so that was cause to tow it, from a private
parking lot?

-- Berkano
gypsyjohn
2004-04-04 15:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Gestapo
The local police towed Cheryl's van and impounded it without cause,
saying they did not know whose van it is.
Interesting, they have a restraining order from Cheryl Gardner which
clearly has her van and plate number on it. But they had no idea who
the van belonged to, so that was cause to tow it, from a private
parking lot?
-- Berkano
Thats very unusual behavior for an attorney to act without consulting
a client.It would appear that some sort of conspiracy is in the
works.Ms Gardner would be advised to enquire of any new attorney as to
their fraternal memberships.This is an ongoing pattern that we see not
just in the court rooms but in the actions of the forest service
LEOs.Some unseen organization(s) seems quite determined to undermine
and destroy the first admendment rights of American citizens to freely
assemble.I would say that Ms.Gardner is to be applauded for her
devotion to cause of freedom.She is not alone.There are many other
rainbow family members who have stood up to this insidious persecution
and have shown a great deal of courage.If you read this
Ms.Gardner..thank you for your steadfastness.Hang in there.If a jury
will look at this "permit" and find it against the "original" law of
the land and decide in her favor;then there is a chance of building a
case against all such permit tickets.
Green Gestapo
2004-04-03 17:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Subsequent to the posting of the court docket, defendant Cheryl Gardner
made a demand for discovery. This was probably done in order to obtain
evidence for use in a pre-trial motion. It remains to be seen, however,
whether the United States Attorney will make a motion to quash.
Yeah, you can't have defendants getting access to the evidence that is
going to be used against them, now can you . . .

-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-03 17:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Here's that DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY that David mentioned.

============================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Hon. Timothy P. Greeley
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:03-m-08
v.
CHERYL GARDNER, Defendant
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attorney for Plaintiff Republic Bank Building
1930 U.S. 41 West Marquette, Ml 49855 (906) 226-2500
JOY D. VERLINDEN (P60948) THOMAS M. KERANEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant 1 22 W. Spring Street Marquette, Ml 49855
(906)225-1770
DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY
1 . Copies of the Information and Warrant (Art. 1 , Sec. 20,
Mich Const of 1963;
MCL 767.28; MSA 28.968);
2. Copies of all statements, admissions, and/or confessions
(People v Walker. 374 Mich 332).
3. Copies of all police reports and tickets issued.
4. Names and addresses of all res gestae witnesses and any other
witnesses who are required by law to be produced.
5. Names and addresses of all witnesses who will be called to
testify against the Defendant (US Const, Amendment 6; Art. 1, Sec. 20,
Mich Const of 1963);
A. Disclosure prior to the time of trial of all evidence known to
the U.S. Attorney or its agents which tends to negate the guilt of the
accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment
(MRPC 3.8);
6. That no statement or interrogation or display of the person or
likeness of
the person of the above-named Defendant be made by the U.S. Attorney or
any agency
or anyone acting at the U.S. Attorney's direction without the
undersigned attorney being
notified and/or present;
7. It is to be understood that this request is continuing and
the information and documentation furnished is expected to be timely
furnished in order to allow defense counsel to properly prepare for any
scheduled court proceedings.
8. Defendant further demands that the U.S. Attorney in this
action produce all documents and other evidence surrounding the
investigation, arrest, and post-arrest activity pertaining to this
incident; including but not limited to the: Warrant, Return for
Warrant, Affidavits and any and all notes made by the investigating
officials.
9. This request is made to prepare for pretrial and trial and is
made in the interest of justice and pursuant to applicable court rule,
case law, statutes, and administrative rule, and if not provided, it
will be presumed that there will be no attempt to admit the unprovided
items into evidence. It should be understood that this demand for
discovery is continuing.
10. Defendant is requesting disclosure, preservation, and
production of all the following items:
1. Police reports.
2. Witness statements.
3. Notes made by the officers that are to be used at trial,
including notes on the back of any ticket.
4. Names and addresses of all lay and expert witnesses.
5. Names of any witnesses who heard any statements or admissions
made by defendant of an inculpatory or exculpatory nature.
6. Copies of any written statements made by defendant.
7. The substance of any verbal statements made by defendant that
the U.S. Attorney intends to produce at trial and/or that tend to
exculpate defendant^
8. The names of any persons in contact with or in a position to
observe defendant within one hour after his/her citation.
9. Any other information not specifically enumerated that the
U.S. Attorney intends to produce at trial of an inculpatory nature.
10. Disclosure of any exculpatory evidence that may negate the
guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the
punishment.
THOMAS M. KERANEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attorneys for the Defendant 122 W. Spring Street Marquette, Ml 49855
(906)225-1770
Dated: March 25, 2004
Post by David
Subsequent to the posting of the court docket, defendant Cheryl Gardner
made a demand for discovery. This was probably done in order to obtain
evidence for use in a pre-trial motion. It remains to be seen, however,
whether the United States Attorney will make a motion to quash.
Head Home
2004-04-03 21:27:16 UTC
Permalink
A "Demand For Discovery" has been served.

Phantastik news ! H O !

It would appear now, finally, in proper order,
attorneys for Cheryl Gardner want to win this case, having gone to all
the trouble to write and enter a "Demand For Discovery". Heralds well!

Has it been established that this case will be heard before an Article
III U.S. District Court ?
Entitled to a trial by jury ?

Incident to the case might be this:

There was issued to Cheryl Gardner, a ticket, described as follows:

United States District Court - Violation Notice

Loc. Code - MW75

{ At the top of the ticket is handwitten "Minnesota" - has been
scratched-over and changed to "Michigan"}

Citation No. - F2680168

[print officer name] - Elkins

[Officer No.]- {Illegible on copy}

[Date and time of offense]- 7-10-02 1817

[Offense charged]-
36CFR...{remainderlleligible}

Place of Offense - Entrance to gathering
{one more word illegible}

Offense Description - Use or occupancy of NFS
lands without a permit.

Defendant's Last Name- Gardner

First Name- Cheryl

M.I. - Lynn

{N.B. - The signature block has been
blacked-over completely, on this copy which was provided
to the court in July,2003, for purposes of securing a warrant for her
subsequent arrest in California.}

{The place on the ticket for
"Vehicle Description" is left blank}

{Below the above, "(block) B is checked}

(Block B) You must mark one of these two choices below and mail this
form within 23 days. See "Instructions".

Checked below that and initialed 'G':

I plead not guilty and promise to appear as required.

"Your Court Date" - An 'X' is thru the blocks
marked "Date" and "Time"
Court Address- "Only if unpaid" is written in this
block

Collateral (fine) - $100.00

For payment by credit card,
SEE INSTRUCTIONS

Q. Does the blackout of Officer Elkins signature
on the prosecution's copy
indicate that Cheryl may not be able to
cross-examine her "accuser", or, that there may not be any
accuser available now except whomever the prosecution may
newly designate. (?) Only, when his name was blacked-out,
perhaps for purposes of personnel substitution later, they
forgat to blackout above, where Elkins had printed-in
his name. Hokey govt. prosecutor tricks,
eh, what? Comments invited on this early prejudicial
blunder.

Regards all Truthseekers,

Mohandas P. Ghandi
Marty
2004-04-03 22:18:32 UTC
Permalink
I have some questions. Sorry if they were already addressed.
Does Cheryl Gardner have her own lawyers, or is she using a
court-appointed attorney? Has the local ACLU been alerted to
the case?
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
I have some questions. Sorry if they were already addressed.
Does Cheryl Gardner have her own lawyers, or is she using a
court-appointed attorney? Has the local ACLU been alerted to
the case?
The ACLU has been alerted and refuses to respond. They apparently are
not interested in the case because it does not fall within the purview
of their political agenda at this time. There needs to be more public
outcry before the ACLU will get involved, I think.

-- Berkano
Marty
2004-04-04 17:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Gestapo
The ACLU has been alerted and refuses to respond.
How about the Missouri ACLU lawyers involved in Nenninger's case?
They seem to grok the issues. I know that's a long shot...
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
Post by Green Gestapo
The ACLU has been alerted and refuses to respond.
How about the Missouri ACLU lawyers involved in Nenninger's case?
They seem to grok the issues. I know that's a long shot...
Don't know if that's been tried. Worth looking into . . .

-- Berkano
Head Home
2004-04-03 22:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps on the original copy of the citation handed to Cheeryl by
Officer Elkins only has "Minnesota" written on the top of the ticket by
the Officer. The printing of "michigan" next to where >Minnesota is
blacked-out seems to be different printing, and could have been
administratively added later.

Only Cheryl's original ticket can verify that the copy of the ticket
presented to the court by the prosecutor for obtaining a warrant for her
arrest and to the court in California for her arraignment, has been
"TAMPERED", AND COULD BE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL. also,
had the citation not been tampered, it would have stated Minnesota. The
gathering was in Michigan, so improper jurisdiction on the ticket could
cause dismissal, if such the case and so petitioned to the court, eh ?
Landing Light
2004-04-03 22:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Minnesota - wrong venue, wrong
jurisdiction entered on ticket

Michigan - correct venue and jurisdiction;
ticket altered (tampered)

Malfeasance - right on schedule,
as expected,
"as applied"

Oh, Juuuudge ! D I S M I S S !

for Peace, Liberty, and Justice ~

Mohandas P. Ghandi
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Head Home
Perhaps on the original copy of the citation handed to Cheeryl by
Officer Elkins only has "Minnesota" written on the top of the ticket by
the Officer. The printing of "michigan" next to where >Minnesota is
blacked-out seems to be different printing, and could have been
administratively added later.
Only Cheryl's original ticket can verify that the copy of the ticket
presented to the court by the prosecutor for obtaining a warrant for her
arrest and to the court in California for her arraignment, has been
"TAMPERED", AND COULD BE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL. also,
had the citation not been tampered, it would have stated Minnesota.
The
Post by Head Home
gathering was in Michigan, so improper jurisdiction on the ticket could
cause dismissal, if such the case and so petitioned to the court, eh ?
There has been in fact much tampering with records. An ex post facto
arrest warrant is just the beginning.

My contention is that none of the lawyers will do their job for fear of
rocking the boat.

-- Berkano
Becca
2004-04-05 15:15:43 UTC
Permalink
You have a right to fire your own/ask for a new attorney (at least a
certain number of times you do, I don't know about forever). Plus, it
can be a pretty good stall tactic, and like happened in my husb's
past, it could drive them nuts so they drop the case/charges. SBreeze
isin my prayers
B-)
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by Head Home
Perhaps on the original copy of the citation handed to Cheeryl by
Officer Elkins only has "Minnesota" written on the top of the ticket
by
Post by Head Home
the Officer. The printing of "michigan" next to where >Minnesota is
blacked-out seems to be different printing, and could have been
administratively added later.
Only Cheryl's original ticket can verify that the copy of the ticket
presented to the court by the prosecutor for obtaining a warrant for
her
Post by Head Home
arrest and to the court in California for her arraignment, has been
"TAMPERED", AND COULD BE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL. also,
had the citation not been tampered, it would have stated Minnesota.
The
Post by Head Home
gathering was in Michigan, so improper jurisdiction on the ticket
could
Post by Head Home
cause dismissal, if such the case and so petitioned to the court, eh
?
There has been in fact much tampering with records. An ex post facto
arrest warrant is just the beginning.
My contention is that none of the lawyers will do their job for fear of
rocking the boat.
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becca
You have a right to fire your own/ask for a new attorney (at least a
certain number of times you do, I don't know about forever). Plus, it
can be a pretty good stall tactic, and like happened in my husb's
past, it could drive them nuts so they drop the case/charges.
SBreeze
Post by Becca
isin my prayers
B-)
Thank you, Becca, for pointing out the obvious that the "agressive and
accusative self-important ones" failed to notice. I will pass along
your prayer to Summer Breeze as soon as possible.

-- Berkano
Landing Light
2004-04-04 16:27:25 UTC
Permalink
What's this ?

Posted above on this thread is a document filed for Cheryl Gardner by
court-appointed attorney, referred to as "DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY".

It states, right from the beginning, that appearance of a conflict to
justice occurs when the Magistrate Judge and the Plaintiff are one and
same entity. So seems ~ the court itself is the Plaintiff, Judge, and
Jury. No fair trial possible !

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hon. Timothy P. Greeley
Plaintiff, Case NO. 2:03-m-08
v.
Cheryl Gardner, Defendant

and states that U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attorney for Plaintiff etc.

So, the Magistrate, himself is Plaintiff, and NOT an impartial judge in
the case.
Matter of written record before the court.
It's a hoax - not "Due Process" !
David
2004-04-04 16:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
It states, right from the beginning, that appearance of a conflict to
justice occurs when the Magistrate Judge and the Plaintiff are one and
same entity. So seems ~ the court itself is the Plaintiff, Judge, and
Jury. No fair trial possible !
When a copy of the docket report was re-formatted for posting on AGR, it
erroneously appeared that the Judge was listed as a plaintiff. In fact, the
actual docket report does NOT say that the judge is the plaintiff.
David
2004-04-04 17:16:31 UTC
Permalink
David" <***@mindspring.com: When a copy of the docket report was re-formatted
for posting on AGR, it erroneously appeared that the Judge was listed as a
plaintiff. In fact, the actual docket report does NOT say that the judge is
the plaintiff.

I TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID ABOVE. When the court docket was posted on AGR on
March 26th, it correctly stated that the case was assigned to a magistrate
judge. Someone, not me, edited it in a subsequent post, so that it
erroneously appeared that the judge was a plaintiff.
Landing Light
2004-04-04 18:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Summerbreeze has again been placed under duress by the courts, both in
Sacramento and Michigan appearances, by both federal (court-appointed)
lawyers.
Sung Lee, before Judge Hollows in Sacramento,CA, as well, Joy Verlinden
at Marquette, Michigan.

Sung Lee acted like a tyrant who insisted Cheryl plead guilty and waive
her rights.
He was ill-prepared to mount any defense and withheld documents from her
that she knew about. Lee said that he would only give her the papers
faxed to him by David if she sould sign the waiver of right to a jury
papers. She refused to sign and never received your fax, David. This
occurred immediately before they walked into Judge Hollows courtroom,
where he submitted for her a guilty plea, to which Cheryl stood up and
objected, attorneys conferred, recessed, etc, Judge Hollows allowed
Cheryl to withdraw her plea and the case moved to a later date, etc.,
until now. Pressure, threats, and duress have been constant and
tiringly illegal, and, as an extra bonus - against the law.

Both the prosecutor and court-appointed federal public defender
exhibited gross negligence, collusion, and incompetence.
The prosecutor could not produce a file supportive of the government's
charges against Cheryl, having mislaid it somewhere (fumbling repeatedly
through files and excusing herself for taking up the court's time);
along with other faux pas by both sides. Sung Lee spent most of his
talking time obsequiously and abjectly apologizing to Judge Hollows over
taking up the court's valuable time and to the prosecutor owing to
Cheryl's not pleading guilty. It was a farcical circus of malpractice,
malfeasance, and incompetence.

The judges have a problem here, with court-appointed public defenders
misrepresenting (betraying?) their client's
cause, refusing to defend or perform any case preparation, threats of
quitting, quitting, duress upon the client (aka "armtwisting" and
cajoling, using any means to secure a 'guilty' plea for the
prosecution), withholding of information.

This, and there are so many other reasons why this case should be
dismissed, or go to a jury if continued. It's a 'mistrial' from the
very beginning!

M. P. Ghandi, Barrister
skye
2004-04-05 00:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
Summerbreeze has again been placed under duress by the courts, both in
Sacramento and Michigan appearances, by both federal (court-appointed)
lawyers.
Sung Lee, before Judge Hollows in Sacramento,CA, as well, Joy Verlinden
at Marquette, Michigan.
Sung Lee acted like a tyrant who insisted Cheryl plead guilty and waive
her rights.
He was ill-prepared to mount any defense and withheld documents from her
that she knew about. Lee said that he would only give her the papers
faxed to him by David if she sould sign the waiver of right to a jury
papers. She refused to sign and never received your fax, David. This
occurred immediately before they walked into Judge Hollows courtroom,
where he submitted for her a guilty plea, to which Cheryl stood up and
objected, attorneys conferred, recessed, etc, Judge Hollows allowed
Cheryl to withdraw her plea and the case moved to a later date, etc.,
until now. Pressure, threats, and duress have been constant and
tiringly illegal, and, as an extra bonus - against the law.
Both the prosecutor and court-appointed federal public defender
exhibited gross negligence, collusion, and incompetence.
The prosecutor could not produce a file supportive of the government's
charges against Cheryl, having mislaid it somewhere (fumbling repeatedly
through files and excusing herself for taking up the court's time);
along with other faux pas by both sides. Sung Lee spent most of his
talking time obsequiously and abjectly apologizing to Judge Hollows over
taking up the court's valuable time and to the prosecutor owing to
Cheryl's not pleading guilty. It was a farcical circus of malpractice,
malfeasance, and incompetence.
The judges have a problem here, with court-appointed public defenders
misrepresenting (betraying?) their client's
cause, refusing to defend or perform any case preparation, threats of
quitting, quitting, duress upon the client (aka "armtwisting" and
cajoling, using any means to secure a 'guilty' plea for the
prosecution), withholding of information.
This, and there are so many other reasons why this case should be
dismissed, or go to a jury if continued. It's a 'mistrial' from the
very beginning!
M. P. Ghandi, Barrister
Thanks for the update-review; The injustice and gross malfeasance you
describe is indicative of a miserable state of affairs repeated
throughout the so-called criminal justice system, especially with
respect to the great farce whereby administrative rules are prosecuted
through secret (non-disclosed) jusrisdiction of Contract Law, which in
many/most contexts is only possible by means of a Maritime or
Admiralty court;

Consider the nuisance prosecution of Cheryll in comparison with the
Bush Administration hijinxs that have undermined the pending lawsuits
of up to 70 electric utilities for gross failure to follow pollution
laws in place since 1972, causing millions of extra tons of mercury
and particulates to be released each year, which has materially
contributed to the seriously compromised-health and deaths of many
tens of thousands of people per year; Or, consider the Government
ignoring the fact that while Enron was being 'investigated', no
officials froze the billions of dollars of assets of the 759 or so
shell-companies that Enron business was hidden behind in the Bahamas,
and no-one even made an official request for Bahamian Banking
officials to release these records (which the Government of Bahamas
kindly-reminded the US Government it would be more than happy to
comply and assist any investigation in any way possible) -- meanwhile,
Enron officials were still withdawing funds from accounts and
shredding documents while US officials dragged their feet and allowed
the ongoing theft and cover-up and obstruction of justice to continue
unchecked, which resulted in the loss of many billions of dollars of
pension and retirement fund investments by tens of thousands of
ordinary people -- and instead, the Justice Dept. spent many millions
of dollars investigating and then prosecuting Martha Stewart, not for
insider trading, but for lying to investigators -- because she was
intimidated and frightened over their steamrooller antics going-after
her stock-sales on evidence the principle Imclon (SP?) company owner
was dumping his personal stocks -- all to prevent her potential loss
of $ 45,000; Seems evident she was a sacrificial example for the
Justice Dept. to 'show' the public they are being 'tough' on
stock-fraud and sham-accounting; What an incredible farce;

Is it any wonder people are losing their respect for "Law" and
"Justice", when on a more personal level, for instance, people are
being essentially taxed without representation as cities are making up
their budget shortfalls with shaky and BS traffic citations (I
recently had such an incident -- I should have demanded a
court-of-record and appealed the bogus conviction, as the city didn't
establish their case (I was cited for not having my MC headlight on,
even though I had been using a 4 1/2 inch halogen headlight fitted in
one of my spotlight fixtures for daylight riding for the last 12 plus
years and 90,000 miles without a single LEO comment-incident);

Tell Cheryll (if ya see/talk with her) to stand tall and be strong;
Folks are prayin' for her and wishing her well;
skye
David
2004-04-03 17:19:18 UTC
Permalink
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The only person who
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl Gardner is her attorney.
PERIOD. Ms. Gardner, at her own peril, is free to make decisions based upon
other people's advice. Which is exactly the problem here.

Needless to say, I do not know defendant Cheryl Gardner, nor have I
communicated with her.
Marty
2004-04-03 17:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The only person who
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl Gardner is her attorney.
I guess you're right, so I'll turn my attention to the US attorneys -- please
file a motion to dismiss all charges on the grounds of a real and present
danger of being laughed out of court by a *jury* of the defendant's peers.
Not only that, they'll be damn lucky if they don't get tarred and feathered
prior to getting run out of town. Don't mess with those "Upers."

Anyway, thanks for the updates. I fear your side's in trouble this time. ;-)

Marty
Green Gestapo
2004-04-03 18:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The only person who
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl Gardner is her attorney.
PERIOD. Ms. Gardner, at her own peril, is free to make decisions based upon
other people's advice. Which is exactly the problem here.
Needless to say, I do not know defendant Cheryl Gardner, nor have I
communicated with her.
I have to say that too many cooks spoils the soup. Many
well-intentioned people can give very bad advice on legal matters. But
many well-intentioned attorneys can also give very bad advice on legal
matters. The insanity!

-- Berkano
Thunder
2004-04-04 04:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The
only person who
Post by David
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl Gardner
is her attorney.
Post by David
PERIOD. Ms. Gardner, at her own peril, is free to make
decisions based upon
Post by David
other people's advice. Which is exactly the problem here.
Needless to say, I do not know defendant Cheryl
Gardner, nor have I
Post by David
communicated with her.
Yup! When you worship in the Church of the Justice faith,
you certainly must pay the Justice Priests to orate your
prayers and supplications in your stead. The common person
is well advised that their understanding doesn't hold a
candle to that of the practitioners of Justice, and should
not trust themselves to think clearly or speak their truth,
which will be invariably at odds with the ever-changing
pronouncements of Justice.

I'll have to hand it to you, David. You certainly seem to
have a powerful faith.
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by David
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The
only person who
Post by David
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl Gardner
is her attorney.
Post by David
PERIOD. Ms. Gardner, at her own peril, is free to make
decisions based upon
Post by David
other people's advice. Which is exactly the problem here.
Needless to say, I do not know defendant Cheryl
Gardner, nor have I
Post by David
communicated with her.
Yup! When you worship in the Church of the Justice faith,
you certainly must pay the Justice Priests to orate your
prayers and supplications in your stead. The common person
is well advised that their understanding doesn't hold a
candle to that of the practitioners of Justice, and should
not trust themselves to think clearly or speak their truth,
which will be invariably at odds with the ever-changing
pronouncements of Justice.
I'll have to hand it to you, David. You certainly seem to
have a powerful faith.
Thunder, you hit the nail on the head. Justice priests, LOL. The BAR
brotherhood is a "Gadianton Robber" priesthood clique with the aim of
robbing the innocent for gain, while making their victims think it has
something to do with law.

BTW, attorneys are not trained in law and do not even know the law.

Cheryl Gardner was agruing with the attorney Joy Verlinden, saying the
issue here is not the permit regulation, but the issue is the right to
peaceably assemble.

Joy kept demanding Cheryl to sign a paper waving her constitutional
rights to a trial by jury, and Cheryl wouldn't budge. Joy was adamant.

Cheryl asked Joy Verlinden what the first ammendment to the
constitution says. Joy was dumbfounded, could not answer, and did not
know! A lawyer did not know the first ammendment. Hardly surprises me.

". . . the right to peaceable assemble, shall not be infringed."

As I said, lawyers do not know the law. They are trained not in law,
but in maritime/martial court *proceedure*.

Holy Smoke, Holy Smoke, plenty bad preachers for
The devil to stoke
Feed 'em in feet first this is no joke
This is thirsty work making Holy Smoke
-Iron Maiden


-- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Green Gestapo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit
Thunder
2004-04-04 13:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
Post by David
I have said this once, and I'll say it again: The
only person who
Post by David
properly should be giving legal advice to Cheryl
Gardner
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
is her attorney.
Post by David
PERIOD. Ms. Gardner, at her own peril, is free to
make
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
decisions based upon
Post by David
other people's advice. Which is exactly the problem
here.
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
Post by David
Needless to say, I do not know defendant Cheryl
Gardner, nor have I
Post by David
communicated with her.
Yup! When you worship in the Church of the Justice
faith,
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
you certainly must pay the Justice Priests to orate your
prayers and supplications in your stead. The common
person
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
is well advised that their understanding doesn't hold a
candle to that of the practitioners of Justice, and
should
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
not trust themselves to think clearly or speak their
truth,
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
which will be invariably at odds with the ever-changing
pronouncements of Justice.
I'll have to hand it to you, David. You certainly seem
to
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by David
have a powerful faith.
Thunder, you hit the nail on the head.
What would you expect, from a carpenter? ;^)
Post by Green Gestapo
Justice priests, LOL. The BAR
brotherhood is a "Gadianton Robber" priesthood clique with
the aim of
Post by Green Gestapo
robbing the innocent for gain, while making their victims
think it has
Post by Green Gestapo
something to do with law.
BTW, attorneys are not trained in law and do not even know
the law.
Post by Green Gestapo
Cheryl Gardner was agruing with the attorney Joy
Verlinden, saying the
Post by Green Gestapo
issue here is not the permit regulation, but the issue is
the right to
Post by Green Gestapo
peaceably assemble.
Joy kept demanding Cheryl to sign a paper waving her
constitutional
Post by Green Gestapo
rights to a trial by jury, and Cheryl wouldn't budge. Joy
was adamant.
Post by Green Gestapo
Cheryl asked Joy Verlinden what the first ammendment to
the
Post by Green Gestapo
constitution says. Joy was dumbfounded, could not answer,
and did not
Post by Green Gestapo
know! A lawyer did not know the first ammendment. Hardly
surprises me.
Post by Green Gestapo
". . . the right to peaceable assemble, shall not be
infringed."
Post by Green Gestapo
As I said, lawyers do not know the law. They are trained
not in law,
Post by Green Gestapo
but in maritime/martial court *proceedure*.
Holy Smoke, Holy Smoke, plenty bad preachers for
The devil to stoke
Feed 'em in feet first this is no joke
This is thirsty work making Holy Smoke
-Iron Maiden
-- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Green Gestapo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit
David
2004-04-04 16:38:49 UTC
Permalink
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Marquette)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-M -8-ALL
Docket as of April 2, 2004 7:12 pm
USA v. Cheryl Gardner Filed: 02/18/03
Case Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley

Joy D. Verlinden
Deft's [former] attorney
Federlein & Keranen PC
122 W Spring
Marquette, MI 49855

U. S. Attorneys:
Paul D. Lochner
US Attorney's Office
U.S. Department of Justice
The Law Building
330 Ionia Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 208
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0208
Kent

Nils R. Kessler, Asst. U.S.
Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
Department of Justice
Republic Bank Bldg, 2nd Fl.
1930 U.S. 41 W
Marquette, MI 49855


2/18/03 1 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner; defendant charged with Use of
Forest Service Land W/Out Permit (Rainbow gathering);
arraignment set for 3/28/03 at 9:00 a.m.; trial set for
3/28/03 at 9:00 a.m.

4/7/03 2 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner; arraignment reset to 6/5/03 at
9:00 a.m.; trial reset to 6/5/03 at 9:00 a.m.
counsel, deft Gardner, USM and USP

5/19/03 3 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner ; arraignment reset to 6/5/03 at
p.m.; trial reset to 6/5/03 at 1:00 p.m.

6/5/03 -- MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley; date
scheduled for initial appearance, arraignment and bench
trial; defendant failed to appear; government requests
warrant of arrest to issue; request granted; S. Kivela,
recorder

6/5/03 -- ARREST WARRANT issued for deft Cheryl Gardner by Magistrate
Judge Timothy P. Greeley

10/20/03 4 MAIL RETURNED [3-1] addressed to Cheryl Gardner

2/9/04 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE from ED/California with copy of
order directing defendant to appear in WD/MI on 2/17/04 at
3:00 p.m.

2/17/04 6 NOTICE OF COUNSEL ASSIGNMENT by Federal Public Defender;
deft Cheryl Gardner will be represented by Joy D.
Verlinden;
w/cert of svc

3/1/04 7 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner;initial appearance/ arraignment set
for 3/17/04 at 3:00 p.m.

3/11/04 8 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for deft Cheryl Gardner by atty Joy D.
Verlinden w/prf of svc

3/17/04 -- MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley first
appearance of Cheryl Gardner; attorney Verlinden appointed
and present; dft appears on warrant of arrest issued; dft
Cheryl Gardner arraigned; not guilty plea entered; trial
to be set 5/12/04; motions due 4/9/04; scheduling order to
issue; P. Chant, recorder

3/17/04 9 APPEARANCE BOND (PR) by deft Cheryl Gardner

3/17/04 10 CJA Form 20 Copy 4 (Appointment of Counsel) for deft Cheryl
Gardner appointing Joy Verlinden

3/26/04 11 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley;
pretrial conference set for 5/12/04 at 9:00 a.m.; motion
filing ddl set for 4/9/04; trial set for 5/12/04 at 9:00
a.m.

3/29/04 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by deft Cheryl Gardner for
defendant's demand for discovery w/pos

3/31/04 13 MOTION to withdraw as counsel by atty Joy Verlinden for
deft Cheryl Gardner with brief in support w/pos
David
2004-04-05 01:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Just for the record, I do not have original knowledge of the alleged
altercation between Cheryl Gardner and her new attorney. Notwithstanding
the subject line, it's possible that her attorney may have withdrawn her
representation without Gardner's consent. But the Code of Professional
Conduct makes that unlikely.
Thunder
2004-04-05 02:27:32 UTC
Permalink
"David" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:vL2cc.10762$***@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net..
.
Post by David
Just for the record, I do not have original knowledge
of the alleged
Post by David
altercation between Cheryl Gardner and her new attorney.
Notwithstanding
Post by David
the subject line, it's possible that her attorney may have
withdrawn her
Post by David
representation without Gardner's consent. But the Code of
Professional
Post by David
Conduct makes that unlikely.
That's interesting. I wonder if the Code of Federal
Regulations makes permit violations unlikely?

Oh. I see. 'Unlikely' is one of those metamorphosing terms
which can be molded to suit the argument. And we're talking
about full-bore clergy here, anyway. God forbid a suggestion
that full-bore clergy might run askew of a code of ethics.

Ain't it funny how that Justice cult, who deals so strictly
with others by absolutes and gotta bes strangely falls short
of pigeonholing itself similarly?

Chuckles. :^)
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Just for the record, I do not have original knowledge of the alleged
altercation between Cheryl Gardner and her new attorney.
Notwithstanding
Post by David
the subject line, it's possible that her attorney may have withdrawn her
representation without Gardner's consent. But the Code of
Professional
Post by David
Conduct makes that unlikely.
I said it once, and I'll say it again: Cheryl fired Joy Verlinden when
Joy could not even recite what the first ammendment says. Imagine that,
a lawyer who does not know the first ammendment!

Fact is, many lawyers don't know what the constitution says. They are
trained in martial court procedure, not law.

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-05 21:11:24 UTC
Permalink
This is why they are public defenders. They are so bad at their jobs
they have to be on the governmant payroll to make a living. p.d.'s are
the lowest of the low. I have spoken with Joy Verlinden and find her
lack of knowledge of the law a real joke. So far the best thing
Cheryl did was firing her. I predict that since this is not an article
III court but probably an administrative court Cheryl will get
screwed. BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
entitled to a jury trial.
Post by Green Gestapo
BTW, attorneys are not trained in law and do not even know the law.
Cheryl Gardner was agruing with the attorney Joy Verlinden, saying the
issue here is not the permit regulation, but the issue is the right to
peaceably assemble.
Joy kept demanding Cheryl to sign a paper waving her constitutional
rights to a trial by jury, and Cheryl wouldn't budge. Joy was adamant.
Cheryl asked Joy Verlinden what the first ammendment to the
constitution says. Joy was dumbfounded, could not answer, and did not
know! A lawyer did not know the first ammendment. Hardly surprises me.
". . . the right to peaceable assemble, shall not be infringed."
As I said, lawyers do not know the law. They are trained not in law,
but in maritime/martial court *proceedure*.
Holy Smoke, Holy Smoke, plenty bad preachers for
The devil to stoke
Feed 'em in feet first this is no joke
This is thirsty work making Holy Smoke
-Iron Maiden
-- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Green Gestapo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit
Marty
2004-04-05 21:30:55 UTC
Permalink
***@sbcglobal.net wrote:
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-15 03:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes, except in cases of
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendm. VII.
Marty
2004-04-15 03:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes,
Is it a crime?

except in cases of
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law,
Is it a lawsuit?

where
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendm. VII.
If that works why hasn't every defendant asked for a jury trial?
Potassius
2004-04-15 06:05:40 UTC
Permalink
In this case, the 'charge sheet' lists it as a "crime" with $5000 fine,6
month penalty and is classified as a 'misdemeanor' violation of a
'statute'. Wrong !

A 'statute' is defined as a law enacted by a legislature to establish
and punish a 'crime'.

Title 36CFR is a 'regulation' and not a statute enacted by a legislative
body, 'duly-elected', of course.
Violation of a regulation is not as serious an offense as a crime, which
is either a misdemeanor or a felony, but an offense nonetheless -
usually punishable by a small fine and/or short time.
Something like a parking ticket, or one for watering the lawn on a no-no
day. Pay, and move-on.

When the specific regulation that Cheryl Gardner is charged with was
published in the federal register after a public comment period, it
stated lesser penalty-
$500.00 fine, to be specific. However, more-recently, the FS upped the
penalty, the fine to $5000.00, and reclassiied it as a misdemeanor -
slipped it in without a prescribed period for public comment, by an
arbitrary bureaucratic fiat/coup.
Illegal...fraud.

Now, for camping and praying in the forest, Cheryl has been singled-out
to establish precedent for the regulation, as applied and as prosecuted,
as well as the alidity or integrity of the constitutional rights of the
public citizen, and, as well, to establish the regulation in law as
amended without proper authorities.

Bogus.




This is bogus for many reasons. The case is bogus in its action and
methods, and in conflict with several constitutional LAWS.
Real laws, and basis for law - not these hi-jinks !
Marty
2004-04-15 06:41:18 UTC
Permalink
None of that seems to address the jury issue, and as for the
alleged procedural violations I'd rather bypass those and go
straight for the First Amendment issues. It's one of those
chances that you only get once in life. Too many people have
stumbled trying to save their asses with "as applied" or technical
challenges, which even if they win, everyone else loses.
Landing Light
2004-04-15 07:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Here's how the FS jammed it in the reg:

http://prop1.org/rainbow/fedreg/comm14.htm


http://community.webtv.net/landinglight/LandingLight
Marty
2004-04-15 08:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
http://prop1.org/rainbow/fedreg/comm14.htm
I understood the part where it explains why a non-commercial
group gets slapped with the same penalties as timber companies
and concessionaires. Why not punish the church picnic the same as
robber baron corporations? But this part caught my attention:

In the context of this rule, the penalty would apply only
if a noncommercial group failed to obtain a special use
authorization for a group use of National Forest System
lands. In such a case, noncommercial groups would be
subject to the same penalty imposed on other forest users
for violation of the prohibitions found at 36 CFR part 261.

Notice that it refers to penalties for groups, not for individuals.
Apparently individuals found guilty are penalized place of the "group."

I always thought that if I were ever in court for a permit violation,
the first thing I would do is demand proof that I am a member of
any group. Not hearsay. Not speculation. Not circumstantial
evidence. Just proof, like the proof required to change the presumption
of innocence. Never mind whether any "group" exists. Never mind whether
it has leaders, representatives or agents. Just prove that I am a
member of _any_ group. Request it in a pre-trial motion and demand a
dismissal of charges if they cannot produce the evidence.

Amazingly, it seems that nearly all the permit defendants to date
have conceded that they are members of a group, namely "Rainbow Family,"
or at least have lost any challenge on that issue. They lost before
the trial started, maybe because playing the white night fatally
limited their options.
PeaceTribes
2004-04-15 15:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Howdy,
hope this gets on.. (possible technical prob)

IF marty and others had or will ever read all the legal briefs i have
filed... particularily dating back to 1997 and my current case... on
appeal to 9th circuit... they/he might realize i, in fact, have stated
that "I am not now nor ever been a "member' of any "group etc." known as
"Rainbow Family etc..." I also testified so in court... (since 1988)
regardless.. the court simply ignores this, as does the FS...
i stopped joining things when i got out of U.S. navy, 1966... last
time for me "joining"... the word "member' as in "member of human race"
IS NOT the way FS and courts use the language... rather, in their use, a
la their documents, briefs... are a person is a "member of Rainbow
Family etc.." when they come to a Gathering.. as in automatic
"membership" as in belonging to a "group"... this has been pointed out
as ridiculous hundreds, thousands of times by me, many others..
language and legal language...
many "rainbow" inspired documents talk about "everyone with a belly
button" (and folks without them) are "family" therefore the FS/courts
prefer to mis-interpret this to mean "member"... even a cursour
examination of most of the defendant court cases concerning Gatherings
will show that nearly all (if not all) defendants have stated, for the
record, they are not "members' in the sense the FS/courts have
decreed...


please read all my briefs, plus my Redress of Grievance filed jan
10th 2004... if you do, my positions will come clear... tks.
barry, plunker, montana
Post by Marty
Post by Landing Light
http://prop1.org/rainbow/fedreg/comm14.htm
I understood the part where it explains why a non-commercial
group gets slapped with the same penalties as timber companies
and concessionaires. Why not punish the church picnic the same as
In the context of this rule, the penalty would apply only
if a noncommercial group failed to obtain a special use
authorization for a group use of National Forest System
lands. In such a case, noncommercial groups would be
subject to the same penalty imposed on other forest users
for violation of the prohibitions found at 36 CFR part 261.
Notice that it refers to penalties for groups, not for individuals.
Apparently individuals found guilty are penalized place of the "group."
I always thought that if I were ever in court for a permit violation,
the first thing I would do is demand proof that I am a member of
any group. Not hearsay. Not speculation. Not circumstantial
evidence. Just proof, like the proof required to change the presumption
of innocence. Never mind whether any "group" exists. Never mind whether
it has leaders, representatives or agents. Just prove that I am a
member of _any_ group. Request it in a pre-trial motion and demand a
dismissal of charges if they cannot produce the evidence.
Amazingly, it seems that nearly all the permit defendants to date
have conceded that they are members of a group, namely "Rainbow Family,"
or at least have lost any challenge on that issue. They lost before
the trial started, maybe because playing the white night fatally
limited their options.
Marty
2004-04-15 16:47:06 UTC
Permalink
PeaceTribes wrote:
the court simply ignores this, as does the FS...

Maybe that explains why I never read about it. :-) As for briefs,
motions, transcripts, etc. most I haven't read or even know where to find.
I would give my eyeteeth (or maybe a a filling or two) to see them.

even a cursour
Post by PeaceTribes
examination of most of the defendant court cases concerning Gatherings
will show that nearly all (if not all) defendants have stated, for the
record, they are not "members' in the sense the FS/courts have
decreed...
Since you mentioned it, it makes sense they would all take that position,
but without most the briefs and with judges "ignoring" their arguments, I
didn't know. It was a mistaken assumption on my part.
Post by PeaceTribes
please read all my briefs, plus my Redress of Grievance filed jan
10th 2004... if you do, my positions will come clear... tks.
barry, plunker, montana
Thanks, I appreciate the effort to make them available, and good luck with
your case.

Marty
PeaceTribes
2004-04-15 18:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Howdy,
(i see that i can post to this agr... great)

as for my briefs... etc... almost everything i have ever filed... for
many years.. i have posted to agr (private list) and this list...
plus, i reckon most of what i have written etc.. is in the legal
sections con cerning "rainbow gatherings' both on <welcomehome.org> and
<***@prop1.org> - these are two individual's websites open for such
postings... for which i am glad...
i believe most all the defendants/plaintiffs etc.. stuff is posted on
these sites... these sites - though proclaimed to be 'rainbow
owned/operated' are NOT... these are websites operated by individuals...
though FS/courts (again) continually mis-interpret/delieberately
mis-interpret these sites as "rainbow"...

There is a "cultural" communications problem between folks who come "a
Gathering" and FS and the Courts... as Cool Hand Luke (mythic persona);
"what we got here is a failure to communicate!"

As a "storyteller" with a "dream/vision" of folks Gathering... i never
expected (in my wildest imagination) to become a person who would have
to (as i have) present my beliefs/feelings i.e. defend my cultural
perspectives, my spiritual/religious choices etc... i.e. to reveal my
beliefs in such a "public" way i.e. in courts etc.....

no "white knight" stuff... rather by chance, accident, or design of
the Great Spirit, i and others have simply found ourselves having to
stand to the task of sharing my/our perspectives and cultural/spiritual
choices...
i encourage anyone who has a "position' on these matters to step
forward... stand forth and join me/others in the "storm'... it is easy
to become someone the FS etc... 'moves against"... simply stand up,
speak up, or as Bob Marley (among others) proclaimed, "Get up, Stand up,
for your rights!"
i have noticed that many of the folks who have strong opinions
concerning these matters have not/do not stand forth... otherwise they
too would (by now) become defendants or plaintiffs in legal cases...

It don't take much effort to receive citation/arrest... just takes
showing up early at Gatherings/stay for cleanups... working the Front
Gate/parking or many of the other tasks - at Gathering - that bring a
person in constant contact, daily 24/7 "nose to nose' with FS etc...

I know this: IF everyone of these opinionated folks, with their strong
positions ALL stood up, for their rights... i mean, hundreds, rather
than the very few, or even - i count at least 10 or 15 folks who are
always presenting their positions as to what to do about all this... if
even these folks stood up, stepped forward... i.e. SHARE THE EFFORT...
why, i know this would make me very happy... and would/will make the FS
make different moves...
it is (my opinion) it is because ONLY so few have stood up to the FS
over these issues (and have taken citations/even arrests) that the FS
has been able to come into courts/public media and declared "these are
leaders"... "people united wil never be defeated"

some folks talk the talk, some folks talk and walk the walk...

i, of course, know it is extremely difficult, for many reasons, for
people, individuals... even opinionated ones... to act... and i don't
put down folks who don't... but i damm sure hope, one day, that many
will "get up, stand up, for their rights"...
this year... this could be the one, the time...
right now... "answer my friends is blowing in the wind" B.Dylan.
thanks, beaplunker - "harriet tubman lives!"
Post by PeaceTribes
the court simply ignores this, as does the FS...
Maybe that explains why I never read about it. :-) As for briefs,
motions, transcripts, etc. most I haven't read or even know where to find.
I would give my eyeteeth (or maybe a a filling or two) to see them.
even a cursour
Post by PeaceTribes
examination of most of the defendant court cases concerning Gatherings
will show that nearly all (if not all) defendants have stated, for the
record, they are not "members' in the sense the FS/courts have
decreed...
Since you mentioned it, it makes sense they would all take that position,
but without most the briefs and with judges "ignoring" their arguments, I
didn't know. It was a mistaken assumption on my part.
Post by PeaceTribes
please read all my briefs, plus my Redress of Grievance filed jan
10th 2004... if you do, my positions will come clear... tks.
barry, plunker, montana
Thanks, I appreciate the effort to make them available, and good luck with
your case.
Marty
the court simply ignores this, as does the FS...
Maybe that explains why I never read about it. :-) As for briefs,
motions, transcripts, etc. most I haven't read or even know where to find.
I would give my eyeteeth (or maybe a a filling or two) to see them.
even a cursour
Post by PeaceTribes
examination of most of the defendant court cases concerning Gatherings
will show that nearly all (if not all) defendants have stated, for the
record, they are not "members' in the sense the FS/courts have
decreed...
Since you mentioned it, it makes sense they would all take that position,
but without most the briefs and with judges "ignoring" their arguments, I
didn't know. It was a mistaken assumption on my part.
Post by PeaceTribes
please read all my briefs, plus my Redress of Grievance filed jan
10th 2004... if you do, my positions will come clear... tks.
barry, plunker, montana
Thanks, I appreciate the effort to make them available, and good luck with
your case.
Marty
Thunder
2004-04-16 03:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeaceTribes
Howdy,
(i see that i can post to this agr... great)
as for my briefs... etc... almost everything i have ever
filed... for
Post by PeaceTribes
many years.. i have posted to agr (private list) and this
list...
Post by PeaceTribes
plus, i reckon most of what i have written etc.. is in
the legal
Post by PeaceTribes
sections con cerning "rainbow gatherings' both on
<welcomehome.org> and
open for such
Post by PeaceTribes
postings... for which i am glad...
i believe most all the defendants/plaintiffs etc.. stuff
is posted on
Post by PeaceTribes
these sites... these sites - though proclaimed to be
'rainbow
Post by PeaceTribes
owned/operated' are NOT... these are websites operated by
individuals...
Post by PeaceTribes
though FS/courts (again) continually
mis-interpret/delieberately
Post by PeaceTribes
mis-interpret these sites as "rainbow"...
There is a "cultural" communications problem between folks
who come "a
Post by PeaceTribes
Gathering" and FS and the Courts... as Cool Hand Luke
(mythic persona);
Post by PeaceTribes
"what we got here is a failure to communicate!"
As a "storyteller" with a "dream/vision" of folks
Gathering... i never
Post by PeaceTribes
expected (in my wildest imagination) to become a person
who would have
Post by PeaceTribes
to (as i have) present my beliefs/feelings i.e. defend my
cultural
Post by PeaceTribes
perspectives, my spiritual/religious choices etc... i.e.
to reveal my
Post by PeaceTribes
beliefs in such a "public" way i.e. in courts etc.....
no "white knight" stuff... rather by chance, accident, or
design of
Post by PeaceTribes
the Great Spirit, i and others have simply found ourselves
having to
Post by PeaceTribes
stand to the task of sharing my/our perspectives and
cultural/spiritual
Post by PeaceTribes
choices...
i encourage anyone who has a "position' on these matters
to step
Post by PeaceTribes
forward... stand forth and join me/others in the
"storm'... it is easy
Post by PeaceTribes
to become someone the FS etc... 'moves against"... simply
stand up,
Post by PeaceTribes
speak up, or as Bob Marley (among others) proclaimed, "Get
up, Stand up,
Post by PeaceTribes
for your rights!"
i have noticed that many of the folks who have strong
opinions
Post by PeaceTribes
concerning these matters have not/do not stand forth...
otherwise they
Post by PeaceTribes
too would (by now) become defendants or plaintiffs in
legal cases...
Post by PeaceTribes
It don't take much effort to receive citation/arrest...
just takes
Post by PeaceTribes
showing up early at Gatherings/stay for cleanups...
working the Front
Post by PeaceTribes
Gate/parking or many of the other tasks - at Gathering -
that bring a
Post by PeaceTribes
person in constant contact, daily 24/7 "nose to nose' with
FS etc...
Post by PeaceTribes
I know this: IF everyone of these opinionated folks, with
their strong
Post by PeaceTribes
positions ALL stood up, for their rights... i mean,
hundreds, rather
Post by PeaceTribes
than the very few, or even - i count at least 10 or 15
folks who are
Post by PeaceTribes
always presenting their positions as to what to do about
all this... if
Post by PeaceTribes
even these folks stood up, stepped forward... i.e. SHARE
THE EFFORT...
Post by PeaceTribes
why, i know this would make me very happy... and
would/will make the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
make different moves...
it is (my opinion) it is because ONLY so few have stood up
to the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
over these issues (and have taken citations/even arrests)
that the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
has been able to come into courts/public media and
declared "these are
Post by PeaceTribes
leaders"... "people united wil never be defeated"
some folks talk the talk, some folks talk and walk the
walk...
Post by PeaceTribes
i, of course, know it is extremely difficult, for many
reasons, for
Post by PeaceTribes
people, individuals... even opinionated ones... to act...
and i don't
Post by PeaceTribes
put down folks who don't... but i damm sure hope, one day,
that many
Post by PeaceTribes
will "get up, stand up, for their rights"...
this year... this could be the one, the time...
right now... "answer my friends is blowing in the wind"
B.Dylan.
Post by PeaceTribes
thanks, beaplunker - "harriet tubman lives!"
Right on B. It sounds great, and I guess time will tell.
Each are called to their own tasks.

Thunder
Sanity
2004-04-16 11:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeaceTribes
Post by PeaceTribes
Howdy,
(i see that i can post to this agr... great)
as for my briefs... etc... almost everything i have ever
filed... for
Post by PeaceTribes
many years.. i have posted to agr (private list) and this
list...
Post by PeaceTribes
plus, i reckon most of what i have written etc.. is in
the legal
Post by PeaceTribes
sections con cerning "rainbow gatherings' both on
<welcomehome.org> and
open for such
Post by PeaceTribes
postings... for which i am glad...
i believe most all the defendants/plaintiffs etc.. stuff
is posted on
Post by PeaceTribes
these sites... these sites - though proclaimed to be
'rainbow
Post by PeaceTribes
owned/operated' are NOT... these are websites operated by
individuals...
Post by PeaceTribes
though FS/courts (again) continually
mis-interpret/delieberately
Post by PeaceTribes
mis-interpret these sites as "rainbow"...
There is a "cultural" communications problem between folks
who come "a
Post by PeaceTribes
Gathering" and FS and the Courts... as Cool Hand Luke
(mythic persona);
Post by PeaceTribes
"what we got here is a failure to communicate!"
As a "storyteller" with a "dream/vision" of folks
Gathering... i never
Post by PeaceTribes
expected (in my wildest imagination) to become a person
who would have
Post by PeaceTribes
to (as i have) present my beliefs/feelings i.e. defend my
cultural
Post by PeaceTribes
perspectives, my spiritual/religious choices etc... i.e.
to reveal my
Post by PeaceTribes
beliefs in such a "public" way i.e. in courts etc.....
no "white knight" stuff... rather by chance, accident, or
design of
Post by PeaceTribes
the Great Spirit, i and others have simply found ourselves
having to
Post by PeaceTribes
stand to the task of sharing my/our perspectives and
cultural/spiritual
Post by PeaceTribes
choices...
i encourage anyone who has a "position' on these matters
to step
Post by PeaceTribes
forward... stand forth and join me/others in the
"storm'... it is easy
Post by PeaceTribes
to become someone the FS etc... 'moves against"... simply
stand up,
Post by PeaceTribes
speak up, or as Bob Marley (among others) proclaimed, "Get
up, Stand up,
Post by PeaceTribes
for your rights!"
i have noticed that many of the folks who have strong
opinions
Post by PeaceTribes
concerning these matters have not/do not stand forth...
otherwise they
Post by PeaceTribes
too would (by now) become defendants or plaintiffs in
legal cases...
Post by PeaceTribes
It don't take much effort to receive citation/arrest...
just takes
Post by PeaceTribes
showing up early at Gatherings/stay for cleanups...
working the Front
Post by PeaceTribes
Gate/parking or many of the other tasks - at Gathering -
that bring a
Post by PeaceTribes
person in constant contact, daily 24/7 "nose to nose' with
FS etc...
Post by PeaceTribes
I know this: IF everyone of these opinionated folks, with
their strong
Post by PeaceTribes
positions ALL stood up, for their rights... i mean,
hundreds, rather
Post by PeaceTribes
than the very few, or even - i count at least 10 or 15
folks who are
Post by PeaceTribes
always presenting their positions as to what to do about
all this... if
Post by PeaceTribes
even these folks stood up, stepped forward... i.e. SHARE
THE EFFORT...
Post by PeaceTribes
why, i know this would make me very happy... and
would/will make the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
make different moves...
it is (my opinion) it is because ONLY so few have stood up
to the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
over these issues (and have taken citations/even arrests)
that the FS
Post by PeaceTribes
has been able to come into courts/public media and
declared "these are
Post by PeaceTribes
leaders"... "people united wil never be defeated"
some folks talk the talk, some folks talk and walk the
walk...
Post by PeaceTribes
i, of course, know it is extremely difficult, for many
reasons, for
Post by PeaceTribes
people, individuals... even opinionated ones... to act...
and i don't
Post by PeaceTribes
put down folks who don't... but i damm sure hope, one day,
that many
Post by PeaceTribes
will "get up, stand up, for their rights"...
"I asked Garrick to sign a Permit." - Plunker (standing up for
rights?)
Post by PeaceTribes
Post by PeaceTribes
this year... this could be the one, the time...
right now... "answer my friends is blowing in the wind"
B.Dylan.
Post by PeaceTribes
thanks, beaplunker - "harriet tubman lives!"
Blow it out your ass hypocrite.
Post by PeaceTribes
Right on B. It sounds great, and I guess time will tell.
Each are called to their own tasks.
Thunder
Sounded great superficially, then I remembered the history. Time will
indeed tell whether a Permit gets signed or not this year.

The Permit Regulation has "a chilling effect" on the right of
peaceable assembly. Only a fools fight in a burning house. I choose
not to contend (war)with the Gummint or its collaberators. My trust in
Plunker/Garrick, Scarecrow, Stubbs, and their High Holy tacit
supporters, to respect my rights has been repeatedly betrayed. Once
burned, twice shy.

Harriet Tubman, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry are dead, but I
don't think any of them would have asked anyone to validate the
annullment of the right of peaceable assembly by signing a Permit to
Gather on Public Land. %~/

Peace,
Sanity [Chillin' in the Ozarks this July. Wash your hands!]
Watering Hole
2004-04-16 05:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Regulations, court cases, briefs, motions,etc. @

http://prop1.org

http://welcomehome.org

in "Regulations" and "Legal" sections-click
Marty
2004-04-16 06:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
http://prop1.org
It looks about the same as I last saw it (a few years) -- still missing
some key cases (like Oregon) and mostly just final opinions. For the first
time, I noticed that Stider's cases are *complete*, including transcript!
It's fitting because that's probably the most important case, and the only
victory with the current version of the regs.
Post by Landing Light
http://welcomehome.org
This seems to have some new stuff, like the MT misc. documents, but it
and other cases are missing final opinions. No transcripts that I noticed.
The Oregon case is here, but Nenninger is missing as on prop1. I think
that hurts the most. I noticed more small documents, like briefs and
motions, on both sites (or else I had just missed them before).
Green Gestapo
2004-04-16 19:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeaceTribes
Howdy,
(i see that i can post to this agr... great)
as for my briefs... etc... almost everything i have ever filed... for
many years.. i have posted to agr (private list) and this list...
plus, i reckon most of what i have written etc.. is in the legal
sections con cerning "rainbow gatherings' both on <welcomehome.org> and
postings... for which i am glad...
i believe most all the defendants/plaintiffs etc.. stuff is posted on
these sites... these sites - though proclaimed to be 'rainbow
owned/operated' are NOT... these are websites operated by
individuals...
Post by PeaceTribes
though FS/courts (again) continually mis-interpret/delieberately
mis-interpret these sites as "rainbow"...
There is a "cultural" communications problem between folks who come "a
Gathering" and FS and the Courts... as Cool Hand Luke (mythic
persona);
Post by PeaceTribes
"what we got here is a failure to communicate!"
As a "storyteller" with a "dream/vision" of folks Gathering... i never
expected (in my wildest imagination) to become a person who would have
to (as i have) present my beliefs/feelings i.e. defend my cultural
perspectives, my spiritual/religious choices etc... i.e. to reveal my
beliefs in such a "public" way i.e. in courts etc.....
no "white knight" stuff... rather by chance, accident, or design of
the Great Spirit, i and others have simply found ourselves having to
stand to the task of sharing my/our perspectives and
cultural/spiritual
Post by PeaceTribes
choices...
i encourage anyone who has a "position' on these matters to step
forward... stand forth and join me/others in the "storm'... it is easy
to become someone the FS etc... 'moves against"... simply stand up,
speak up, or as Bob Marley (among others) proclaimed, "Get up, Stand up,
for your rights!"
i have noticed that many of the folks who have strong opinions
concerning these matters have not/do not stand forth... otherwise they
too would (by now) become defendants or plaintiffs in legal cases...
It don't take much effort to receive citation/arrest... just takes
showing up early at Gatherings/stay for cleanups... working the Front
Gate/parking or many of the other tasks - at Gathering - that bring a
person in constant contact, daily 24/7 "nose to nose' with FS etc...
I know this: IF everyone of these opinionated folks, with their strong
positions ALL stood up, for their rights... i mean, hundreds, rather
than the very few, or even - i count at least 10 or 15 folks who are
always presenting their positions as to what to do about all this... if
even these folks stood up, stepped forward... i.e. SHARE THE
EFFORT...
Post by PeaceTribes
why, i know this would make me very happy... and would/will make the FS
make different moves...
it is (my opinion) it is because ONLY so few have stood up to the FS
over these issues (and have taken citations/even arrests) that the FS
has been able to come into courts/public media and declared "these are
leaders"... "people united wil never be defeated"
You are very right. I was with a sister at the 2K3 "snow-in" when the
illustrious Officer Tallahassee Oates pulled her over and proceeded to
terrorize her over a cracked brake light. She was several miles from
the gathering!

Anyway, she told Oates to stick it, and no she was not getting out of
the vehicle, and she told him he did not have probable cause to make
her exit her vehicle, and no she was not going to do what he ordered
her to do. He got so angry and out of control he was about ready to
pull his firearm and point it at her when I intervened. The man was a
public menace.

Other LEOs showed up and pulled Oates away and wrote the sister a
ticket for her brake light.

She signed the ticket with the words, "Under Duress," never paid it,
and has heard nothing about it since. They can't prosecute the ticket
because she signed the words, "Under Duress." She shows she did not
accept their service of process, so their process is defective ab
initio by default.

Better than signing "Under Duress" is to note additionally on the face
of the citation at serving time, pressing hard so all copies get it,
"Refused for Cause and without Recourse to Me."

When a judge sees that on the ticket, he will not be interested in the
case being in his courtroom, as to allow it would be a violation of due
process, because the signer rejected the process at the beginning.

-- Berkano
bodhi
2004-04-17 15:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeaceTribes
as for my briefs...
Unlike Plunker i prefer my briefs to be silk....

namaste;
bodhi
Road Dawgs Unite!
http://groups.msn.com/Region16
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bodhi
Post by PeaceTribes
as for my briefs...
Unlike Plunker i prefer my briefs to be silk....
Plunker is a cowboy, don't like nun'o dat frilly, girly stuff you'z
profferin'

Git you some burlap underwear, son. Silk panties is not for dudes.
--
_________________________________________________
Green Gestapo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit
Green Gestapo
2004-04-16 19:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeaceTribes
Howdy,
hope this gets on.. (possible technical prob)
IF marty and others had or will ever read all the legal briefs i have
filed... particularily dating back to 1997 and my current case... on
appeal to 9th circuit... they/he might realize i, in fact, have stated
that "I am not now nor ever been a "member' of any "group etc." known as
"Rainbow Family etc..." I also testified so in court... (since 1988)
regardless.. the court simply ignores this, as does the FS...
i stopped joining things when i got out of U.S. navy, 1966... last
time for me "joining"... the word "member' as in "member of human race"
IS NOT the way FS and courts use the language... rather, in their use, a
la their documents, briefs... are a person is a "member of Rainbow
Family etc.." when they come to a Gathering.. as in automatic
"membership" as in belonging to a "group"... this has been pointed out
as ridiculous hundreds, thousands of times by me, many others..
language and legal language...
many "rainbow" inspired documents talk about "everyone with a belly
button" (and folks without them) are "family" therefore the FS/courts
prefer to mis-interpret this to mean "member"... even a cursour
examination of most of the defendant court cases concerning
Gatherings
Post by PeaceTribes
will show that nearly all (if not all) defendants have stated, for the
record, they are not "members' in the sense the FS/courts have
decreed...
Well, actually the courts don't misinterpret anything. They know they
are violating your rights and perpetrating a fraud. That's their goal.
And it can only be achieved by dishonest judges and racketeering
lawyers.

-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-16 19:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
Post by Landing Light
http://prop1.org/rainbow/fedreg/comm14.htm
I understood the part where it explains why a non-commercial
group gets slapped with the same penalties as timber companies
and concessionaires. Why not punish the church picnic the same as
In the context of this rule, the penalty would apply only
if a noncommercial group failed to obtain a special use
authorization for a group use of National Forest System
lands. In such a case, noncommercial groups would be
subject to the same penalty imposed on other forest users
for violation of the prohibitions found at 36 CFR part 261.
Notice that it refers to penalties for groups, not for individuals.
Apparently individuals found guilty are penalized place of the
"group."
Post by Marty
I always thought that if I were ever in court for a permit violation,
the first thing I would do is demand proof that I am a member of
any group. Not hearsay. Not speculation. Not circumstantial
evidence. Just proof, like the proof required to change the
presumption
Post by Marty
of innocence. Never mind whether any "group" exists. Never mind whether
it has leaders, representatives or agents. Just prove that I am a
member of _any_ group. Request it in a pre-trial motion and demand a
dismissal of charges if they cannot produce the evidence.
Amazingly, it seems that nearly all the permit defendants to date
have conceded that they are members of a group, namely "Rainbow Family,"
or at least have lost any challenge on that issue. They lost before
the trial started, maybe because playing the white night fatally
limited their options.
The government is contending that the accused are members of the
RAINBOW FAMILY, a government creation, not Rainbow Family. There is a
difference, and failing to see it means thirty days.

-- Berkano
Marty
2004-04-16 19:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Gestapo
The government is contending that the accused are members of the
RAINBOW FAMILY, a government creation, not Rainbow Family. There is a
difference, and failing to see it means thirty days.
The only difference I see is that you SHOUTED IT the first time.
However loudly you say it, it's always a government fiction created
to enforce the permit regulations. Rainbow gatherings are a free
assembly not partial to any sponsoring group, nor type of individual!
What's so frickin hard to understand about that?

The US government, via the Forest Service law enforcement division,
sells this poison pill by means of persuasive collaborators, targetting
gatherers who long for leaders and a sense of belonging, but don't
seem to realize what the rainbow gathering "vision thing" is all
about, nor that once the US government can distinguish and isolate
their little exclusive club from citizens in general, that's when
the real fun begins. They've fallen into the trap.
Green Gestapo
2004-04-16 23:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
Post by Green Gestapo
The government is contending that the accused are members of the
RAINBOW FAMILY, a government creation, not Rainbow Family. There is a
difference, and failing to see it means thirty days.
The only difference I see is that you SHOUTED IT the first time.
No, not shouting, only touting the difference between an unincorporated
customary person and a persona fictio demonstrated with a nom de
guerre.
Post by Marty
However loudly you say it, it's always a government fiction created
to enforce the permit regulations.
You're preaching to the choir, bub. This needs to be presented in a way
that everyone else can get it in their guts. Get enema bags and catnip,
as you will be busy should you choose to accept that task.
Post by Marty
Rainbow gatherings are a free
assembly not partial to any sponsoring group, nor type of individual!
What's so frickin hard to understand about that?
Because so many people want it to be their exclusive,
sense-of-belonging, Oh-I'm-so-specially-enlightened, deadhead, hippie,
counterculture club, instead of just letting it be a free, peaceable
assembly as it is.

Are you saying that the term, "Rainbow Family" was introduced during
the first gatherings by agent provoceteurs working a psy-ops mission?
To destroy the Peace Gathering by metamorphosing it linguistically? Is
it possible that much of the bastardized easter religion terminology
and much of the Rainbow Lingo were invented, introduced, and
popularized in gathering culture by the government as part of a plan to
slowly take over and suppress the real World Peace Gatherings?
Post by Marty
The US government, via the Forest Service law enforcement division,
sells this poison pill by means of persuasive collaborators,
targetting
Post by Marty
gatherers who long for leaders and a sense of belonging, but don't
seem to realize what the rainbow gathering "vision thing" is all
about, nor that once the US government can distinguish and isolate
their little exclusive club from citizens in general, that's when
the real fun begins. They've fallen into the trap.
Weak people need a sense of belonging. Strong people create a safe
place to belong.

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Glad to see you know the difference, Beranko
Post by Marty
Post by Marty
Post by Landing Light
http://prop1.org/rainbow/fedreg/comm14.htm
I understood the part where it explains why a non-commercial
group gets slapped with the same penalties as timber companies
and concessionaires. Why not punish the church picnic the same as
In the context of this rule, the penalty would apply only
if a noncommercial group failed to obtain a special use
authorization for a group use of National Forest System
lands. In such a case, noncommercial groups would be
subject to the same penalty imposed on other forest users
for violation of the prohibitions found at 36 CFR part 261.
Notice that it refers to penalties for groups, not for individuals.
Apparently individuals found guilty are penalized place of the
"group."
Post by Marty
I always thought that if I were ever in court for a permit violation,
the first thing I would do is demand proof that I am a member of
any group. Not hearsay. Not speculation. Not circumstantial
evidence. Just proof, like the proof required to change the
presumption
Post by Marty
of innocence. Never mind whether any "group" exists. Never mind
whether
Post by Marty
it has leaders, representatives or agents. Just prove that I am a
member of _any_ group. Request it in a pre-trial motion and demand a
dismissal of charges if they cannot produce the evidence.
Amazingly, it seems that nearly all the permit defendants to date
have conceded that they are members of a group, namely "Rainbow
Family,"
Post by Marty
or at least have lost any challenge on that issue. They lost before
the trial started, maybe because playing the white night fatally
limited their options.
The government is contending that the accused are members of the
RAINBOW FAMILY, a government creation, not Rainbow Family. There is a
difference, and failing to see it means thirty days.
-- Berkano
Marty
2004-04-15 08:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Marty (me) wrote:
Too many people have
Post by Marty
stumbled trying to save their asses with "as applied" or technical
challenges, which even if they win, everyone else loses.
Not that I blame them for trying to save their asses, BTW, especially
if they were involuntarily ticketed. (I was worried that might come
off wrong.)
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:41:35 UTC
Permalink
She's in an article iv administrative court the constitution does not
apply there.
Post by Potassius
In this case, the 'charge sheet' lists it as a "crime" with $5000 fine,6
month penalty and is classified as a 'misdemeanor' violation of a
'statute'. Wrong !
A 'statute' is defined as a law enacted by a legislature to establish
and punish a 'crime'.
Title 36CFR is a 'regulation' and not a statute enacted by a legislative
body, 'duly-elected', of course.
Violation of a regulation is not as serious an offense as a crime, which
is either a misdemeanor or a felony, but an offense nonetheless -
usually punishable by a small fine and/or short time.
Something like a parking ticket, or one for watering the lawn on a no-no
day. Pay, and move-on.
When the specific regulation that Cheryl Gardner is charged with was
published in the federal register after a public comment period, it
stated lesser penalty-
$500.00 fine, to be specific. However, more-recently, the FS upped the
penalty, the fine to $5000.00, and reclassiied it as a misdemeanor -
slipped it in without a prescribed period for public comment, by an
arbitrary bureaucratic fiat/coup.
Illegal...fraud.
Now, for camping and praying in the forest, Cheryl has been singled-out
to establish precedent for the regulation, as applied and as prosecuted,
as well as the alidity or integrity of the constitutional rights of the
public citizen, and, as well, to establish the regulation in law as
amended without proper authorities.
Bogus.
This is bogus for many reasons. The case is bogus in its action and
methods, and in conflict with several constitutional LAWS.
Real laws, and basis for law - not these hi-jinks !
Green Gestapo
2004-04-16 19:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes,
Is it a crime?
except in cases of
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law,
Is it a lawsuit?
where
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendm. VII.
If that works why hasn't every defendant asked for a jury trial?
That's the problem. The do ask for a jury trial. A "jury trial" is not
a "trial by jury." It is an administrative counterfeit. They "ask"
instead of demanding. They ask for the wrong type of trial, too.

A trial by a jury of your peers means the twelve people on the jury
know you personally and have every right to be biased in your favor,
because the presumption at law is that the government is evil until
proven innocent. Instead you get a "jury trial" dog and pony show where
you are guilty until proven innocent.

Are twelve of your peers who know you going to find you guilty of
"gathering without a permit?" No way. So now you know why you don't get
a trial by a jury of your peers, unless you kick, scream, and fight for
it.

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes,
Is it a crime?
except in cases of
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law,
Is it a lawsuit?
where
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendm. VII.
If that works why hasn't every defendant asked for a jury trial?
People donot know the law and do not question it. The bottom line is
the feds do not have jurisdiction anyway. oh and yeah....of course its
not a crime.
gary
2004-04-18 01:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes, except in cases of
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved....
really.....when was the last time you every got a jury trial on a
traffic ticket........or a parking ticket..... you guys are so full
of shit .... and sooooooo ignornate regarding the subjects your
talking about
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
The constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all
crimes, except in cases of
impeachment, shall be by jury;" and this invaluable institution is
also, secured by the several state
constitutions. The constitution of the United States also provides
that in suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved....
really.....when was the last time you every got a jury trial on a
traffic ticket........or a parking ticket..... you guys are so full
of shit .... and sooooooo ignornate regarding the subjects your
talking about
Your attitude betrays your severe ignorance. Anyone can demand a jury
trial for a traffic ticket. You simply don't know the law, and seek to
tear down others instead of admitting your cozy, limited world-view has
left you feeling powerless and defenseless.

-- Berkano
gary
2004-04-18 01:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
entitled to a jury trial.
I thought it was decided by the prison time, with a jury required
for more than 6 months.
this is supriusing coming from a guy who seems to think that he
knows all there is about the law ...Ive been telling this for mnonths
...no jury trial....maybe you should listen tpo those or ous who have
foughtto permit fight...for real...in court and faced the judges
...andstop pontificating as if you knew something.... you DONNOT get a
jury trial on the permit ticket.....duh
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
This is why they are public defenders. They are so bad at their jobs
they have to be on the governmant payroll to make a living. p.d.'s are
the lowest of the low. I have spoken with Joy Verlinden and find her
lack of knowledge of the law a real joke. So far the best thing
Cheryl did was firing her. I predict that since this is not an
article
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
III court but probably an administrative court Cheryl will get
screwed. BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
entitled to a jury trial.
Point taken and elaborated:

Cheryl is entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court. She has
already made it very clear that unless the parties convene a court with
an Article III authorized judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office, she does not consent to their jurisdiction. The state cannot
make someone answer to charges in a maritime court without the consent
of the accused party. That is the law, which the state is trying to
violate.

What I wait to see is if Summer knows the law well enough to keep from
being deceived into accepting maritime jurisdiction by implied
agreement.

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-10 20:09:23 UTC
Permalink
I am not sure the feds even have jurisdiction in the case see Drave
vs U.S.
Post by Green Gestapo
Cheryl is entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court. She has
already made it very clear that unless the parties convene a court with
an Article III authorized judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office, she does not consent to their jurisdiction. The state cannot
make someone answer to charges in a maritime court without the consent
of the accused party. That is the law, which the state is trying to
violate.
What I wait to see is if Summer knows the law well enough to keep from
being deceived into accepting maritime jurisdiction by implied
agreement.
-- Berkano
Potassius
2004-04-10 21:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Moviebob,

What is the opinion in "Drave v. US" ?

What court, Case No. etc, date.

Can you offer abrief summary of the decision, and how it might relate to
the Marquette case in process ?

And/or, will you post a URL link to case ?

Does this have anything to do with the thingy that, if the said land on
the forest system has never been officially deeded to the fed by the
state,
only the state has criminal jurisdiction on such federal forest lands
within that state, and not the federal government ?

Could somebelly post info to be clear on these matters ?
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-12 01:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Bingo! the feds do not have jurisdiction in most of the cases they
prosecute. Defendant has to question jurisdiction. If the secy of
state has on record of the state ceeding the land to the feds there is
no jurisdiction. Dravo basically said that because the land is owned
by the feds does not grant the feds juristiction. Here's an
interesting read:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL
CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL

664 Territorial Jurisdiction Of the several categories listed in 18
U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3)
is the most significant, and provides:

The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States," as used in this title, includes: . . .
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United
States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or
any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by
consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be,
for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other
needful building.

As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its
second clause, bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of
Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. This clause provides:

The Congress shall have power. . . To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten Miles square) as may, be Cession of particular States, and the
acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.(Emphasis added.) The
constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of
the statutory __expression "exclusive jurisdiction." See James v.
Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937), citing, Surplus
Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).

Until the decision in Dravo, it had been generally accepted that
when the United States acquired property with the consent of the state
for any of the enumerated purposes, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction
by operation of law, and any reservation of authority by the state,
other than the right to serve civil and criminal process,
was inoperable. See Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 652-56.
When Dravo held that a state might reserve legislative authority,
e.g., the right to levy certain taxes, so long as that did not
interfere with the United States' governmental functions, it became
necessary for Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), by adding the words
"so as," to restore criminal jurisdiction over those places
previously believed to be under exclusive Federal legislative
jurisdiction. See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940);
S. Rep. No. 1788, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940).

Dravo also settled that the phrase "other needful building" was not
to be strictly construed to include only military and naval
structures, but was to be construed as "embracing whatever structures
are found to be necessary in the performance of the function of the
Federal Government." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at
142-43. It therefore properly embraces courthouses, customs houses,
post offices and locks and dams for navigation purposes.

The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United
States from holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land
acquired for other valid purposes, such as parks and irrigation
projects since Clause 17 is not the exclusive method of obtaining
jurisdiction. The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by
reserving it when sovereign title is transferred to the state upon
its entry into the Union or by cession of jurisdiction after the
United States has otherwise acquired the property. See Collins v.
Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); James v. Dravo
Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281
U.S. at 650-52; Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525,
526-27, 538, 539 (1885).

The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders
of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to
land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or
eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States,
91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does not thereby acquire
legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The
acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession
of jurisdiction by the state. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302
U.S. 97 (1937); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 141-42.
State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced
by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or
statutory provision. Cession of jurisdiction by the state also
requires acceptance by the United States. See Adams v. United States,
319 U.S. 312 (1943); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 651-52.
Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal
question. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. at 197.


Prior to February 1,1940, it was presumed that the United States
accepted jurisdiction whenever the state offered it because the
donation was deemed a benefit. See Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe,
114 U.S. at 528. This presumption was reversed by enactment of the Act
of February 1, 1940, codified at 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute
requires the head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or
holding property to file with the state a formal acceptance of such
"jurisdiction, exclusive or partial as he may deem desirable," and
further provides that in the absence of such filing "it shall be
conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired."
See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (district court is without
jurisdiction to prosecute soldiers for rape committed on an army base
prior to filing of acceptance prescribed by statute). The requirement
of 40 U.S.C. § 255 can also be fulfilled by any filing satisfying
state law. United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980, 984-86 (2d Cir.
1993). The enactment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 did not retroactively affect
jurisdiction previously acquired. See Markham v. United States, 215
F.2d 56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 939 (1954); United
States v. Heard, 270 F. Supp. 198, 200 (W.D. Mo. 1967).

COMMENT: In summary, the United States may exercise plenary
criminal jurisdiction over lands within state borders:

Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into
the union;


Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a
purpose enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;

Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent
domain, and thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a
cession of jurisdiction from the state; and

Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent
or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the
requisite acceptance.

665 Determining Federal Jurisdiction
When instances are reported to the United States Attorney of
offenses committed on land or in buildings occupied by agencies of the
Federal government -- unless the crime reported is a Federal
offense regardless of where committed, such as assault on a Federal
officer or possession of narcotics -- the United States has
jurisdiction only if the land or building is within the special
territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

PRACTICE TIP: A convenient method of determining the jurisdictional
status is to contact an appropriate attorney with the agency having
custody of the land. The regional counsel's office of the General
Services Administration usually has the complete roster of all Federal
lands and buildings in its region and can frequently provide a
definitive answer to jurisdiction. Each United States Attorney would
be well advised to request from each agency within the district a
report on
the jurisdictional status claimed for each of its facilities and
assurance that documentation is available.

666 Proof of Territorial Jurisdiction
There has been a trend to treat certain "jurisdictional facts" that
do not bear on guilt (mens rea or actus reus) as non-elements of
the offense, and therefore as issues for the court rather than the
jury, and to require proof by only a preponderance that the offense
was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the court to
establish that venue has been properly laid. See United States
v.Bowers, 660 F.2d 527, 531 (5th Cir. 1981); Government of Canal Zone
v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Black
Cloud, 590 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1979) (jury question); United States v.
Powell, 498 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1974). The court in Government of
Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 694-95, applied the preponderance
test to determinations of whether or not the offenses took place
within the Canal Zone which established not merely proper venue but
subject matter jurisdiction as well. Other cases, however, hold that
the issue of whether the United States has jurisdiction over the site
of a crime is a judicial question, see United States v. Jones, 480
F.2d 1135, 1138 (2d Cir. 1973), but that the issue of whether the act
was committed within the borders of the Federal enclave is for the
jury and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. See United
States v. Parker, 622 F.2d 298 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v.
Jones, 480 F.2d at 1138. The law of your Circuit must be consulted to
determine which approach is followed in your district.

The decision in Burjan should be viewed with caution. The analogy
between territorial jurisdiction and venue has much to recommend it.
Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the two are not of
equal importance. As the Burjan court noted, citing Fed. R. Crim.
P.12, subject matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be
waived and may be noticed at any stage of the proceeding, see
Government of the Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 693, whereas the
Ninth Circuit in Powell rested its ruling that venue need be proved by
only a preponderance on the relative unimportance of venue as
evidenced by its waivability. There is a clear distinction between
the question of which court of a sovereign may try an accused for a
violation of its laws and whether the sovereign's law has been
violated at all.

Proof of territorial jurisdiction may be by direct or
circumstantial evidence, and at least at the trial level may be aided
by judicial notice. See United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d at 530-31;
Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 694. Compare
government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690 with United States v.
Jones, 480 F.2d 1135, concerning the role judicial notice may play
on appeal.
Post by Potassius
Does this have anything to do with the thingy that, if the said land on
the forest system has never been officially deeded to the fed by the
state,
only the state has criminal jurisdiction on such federal forest lands
within that state, and not the federal government ?
Could somebelly post info to be clear on these matters ?
Landing Light
2004-04-12 13:10:28 UTC
Permalink
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s107.htm

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html

Cheryl is accused and being persecuted under

"The Final Rule"

(that is what it is stated in the
"Federal Register" under 36CFR)
None of which waas ever passed into law by Congress, but a "regulation".
a "rule";
not a Statute.

The charge in court is posited as a "crime" and is classified as a
"misdemeanor" offense on the order that calls for a penalty oof up to 6
months imprisonment and $5,000 fine.

"Statute" is defined as a "law", enacted by a legislative body. A
"regulation" is not a "statute". The prosecution is usurping the
constitutional meaning of law.

More thinking is invited to address this.

Too much whimsy in this case for it to even look anything like reality.

Free Cheryl Gardner !
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Nice to see someone who knows their sh#t! You are very well informed
Beranko
Post by Green Gestapo
Cheryl is entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court. She has
already made it very clear that unless the parties convene a court with
an Article III authorized judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office, she does not consent to their jurisdiction. The state cannot
make someone answer to charges in a maritime court without the consent
of the accused party. That is the law, which the state is trying to
violate.
What I wait to see is if Summer knows the law well enough to keep from
being deceived into accepting maritime jurisdiction by implied
agreement.
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Nice to see someone who knows their sh#t! You are very well informed
Thanks, er, I think. ;)

-- Berkano
gary
2004-04-18 01:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Landing Light
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
This is why they are public defenders. They are so bad at their jobs
they have to be on the governmant payroll to make a living. p.d.'s
are
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
the lowest of the low. I have spoken with Joy Verlinden and find her
lack of knowledge of the law a real joke. So far the best thing
Cheryl did was firing her. I predict that since this is not an
article
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
III court but probably an administrative court Cheryl will get
screwed. BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
entitled to a jury trial.
Cheryl is entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court. She has
already made it very clear that unless the parties convene a court with
an Article III authorized judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office, she does not consent to their jurisdiction. The state cannot
make someone answer to charges in a maritime court without the consent
of the accused party. That is the law, which the state is trying to
violate.
where do you learn this crap...what do you know about maritime law
...do you even know what maritime law it .....give me a braek....your
just nuts ..I mean it.....your quite deluded if you think thatshes
going to get a jury trial....
Post by Landing Light
What I wait to see is if Summer knows the law well enough to keep from
being deceived into accepting maritime jurisdiction by implied
agreement.
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
Post by Landing Light
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
This is why they are public defenders. They are so bad at their jobs
they have to be on the governmant payroll to make a living. p.d.'s
are
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
the lowest of the low. I have spoken with Joy Verlinden and find her
lack of knowledge of the law a real joke. So far the best thing
Cheryl did was firing her. I predict that since this is not an
article
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
III court but probably an administrative court Cheryl will get
screwed. BTW since the monetary penalty is over $20.00 Cheryl is
entitled to a jury trial.
Cheryl is entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court. She has
already made it very clear that unless the parties convene a court with
an Article III authorized judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office, she does not consent to their jurisdiction. The state cannot
make someone answer to charges in a maritime court without the consent
of the accused party. That is the law, which the state is trying to
violate.
where do you learn this crap...what do you know about maritime law
...do you even know what maritime law it .....give me a braek....your
just nuts ..I mean it.....your quite deluded if you think thatshes
going to get a jury trial....
Oh, you know the future do you? What are you, some kind of a prophet?

You sound like a fed. You spell like a fed, too, trying too hard to
appear human in your posts.

The question is, do you know what maritime law is, and the answer is,
no you do not. I most certainly know what it is, and how to defy its
clutches. Maritime law rests on the unholy principle of jurisdiction
obtained by tacit, unknowing agreement.

Drag me into court and you drag my mouth with me. Not smart for keeping
the maritime criminal racket a secret.

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-18 20:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Hey gary, were you that kid in the school playground that always said
I give, I give everytime the school jocks messed with you. Its too bad
its in your nature to just roll over and play dead. Thinking like
yours is whats got the country in the mess its in now. BTW I am pretty
well versed in Maritime law. SO why don't ya just roll over one more
time and play dead so we can get on with sharing our thoughts on
cheryl's situation
Post by gary
where do you learn this crap...what do you know about maritime law
...do you even know what maritime law it .....give me a braek....your
just nuts ..I mean it.....your quite deluded if you think thatshes
going to get a jury trial....
Post by Green Gestapo
What I wait to see is if Summer knows the law well enough to keep from
being deceived into accepting maritime jurisdiction by implied
agreement.
-- Berkano
Head Home
2004-04-03 21:56:53 UTC
Permalink
In a post you said that the Supreme Court said that the rule (read
'reg') is constitutional.

Not so. The SC has never adjucated the rule as no case has ever been
brought before the court for its consideration respecting the reg.

The constitutionallity of the reg has never been appealed to the SC by
any federal Circuit Court
of Appeals. This might be the case to go there.

Other, are "BO'"s like "Ithaca Hours"...barter ?

Come to the gathering ! And invite all
"baltimorons"

Y'all come ~ Welcome Home !
gary
2004-04-04 00:49:41 UTC
Permalink
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you odnr
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had ever
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
Post by Landing Light
Anyone care to translate this into English?
I'll try, Sheryl Gardner also known as Summerbreeze was given a
ticket for attending the 2002 Rainbow National which was a gathering
of 75 or more people on forrest land without a permit. She was never
properly served and was accused (and aquitted)of failure to appear in
court. In June an arrest warrant was issued and early this year she
was arrested and released on $10000 bail in Northern California. On
the 17th she traveled to Marquette Michigan to face the charges
before
a judge. she pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial which
will
happen in May. Stay tuned
Let me elaborate a mite . . .
The court in Michigan could not obtain jurisdiction because Cheryl
refused the accepted offer of the right to a trial before a magistrate.
Instead she demanded a trial before a jury of her peers in an Aricle
III court.
Thus the US Attorney's office can't even legally prosecute the case
because none of them have taken an oath to defend the constitution and
Cheryl would not sign the papers they demanded that would contract her
to their forum.
It's a real legal pickle for the state.
The state is trying to find a judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office to arbitrate a real trial by jury. Without such a sworn judge,
there can be no moving forward.
If they can't set up an article III matter, they will have to dismiss
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
All because Cheryl refused to sign anything . . .
Stay tuned.
-- Berkano
Landing Light
2004-04-04 01:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Because of irregularities in means by which the prosecutor is conducting
the arrest warrant process, service thereof,
falsification of the citation (alteration) after-the-fact, other
prejudice, and the vaguery of the reg - Title 36CFR.261.10k
and 251.50(a) - upon preponderance of the charge, Cheryl cannot obtain
a fair trial before a "magistrate", but only before a jury. The
prosecution has stumbled all over itself so far; painted itself into a
corner so to speak. They would be smart to dismiss the case.

Otherwise, exposure to witness further ineptitude on their part and
Cheryl will win the case brought against her. Then, it will be a
constitutional test case which they will lose, and allbellies celebrate
her success. Free at last !
Watering Hole
2004-04-04 01:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Don't sign anything !

Luvvin' Ya,

Ghandi, Mahatma


http://community.webtv.net/watrinhole/WateringHole
Watering Hole
2004-04-04 03:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Now comes the question -

Will the court now define "Due Process" ?

If a "fair trial" cannot be assembled, no "due process" can issue
therefrom.

Case closed.
Green Gestapo
2004-04-04 09:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you odnr
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had ever
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation of
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.

-- Berkano
Thunder
2004-04-04 13:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial
under the
Post by gary
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or
what your
Post by gary
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under
the reg....so
Post by gary
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy
advice you
Post by gary
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the
situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get
one for a
Post by gary
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any
of you had
ever
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most
monday morning
Post by gary
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the
game ...
Amendment VII:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be
otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law."

To me this appears to refer to civil cases.


Here's an excerpt from:
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/jury.htm

DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL IN PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT?
"Despite statutory protections for commitment,
research has found that procedures for involuntary
commitment tend to be perfunctory and a legal charade, which
merely 'rubber stamp' psychiatric recommendations" (Douglas
S. Stransky, University of Miami Law Review, "Civil
Commitment and the Right to Refuse Treatment..." Vol.
50:413, page 417, note 29). Although many courts have ruled
that a jury is not essential to due process, in point of
actual fact, experience has shown that only when the case is
decided by a jury are persons accused of mental illness
given a fair trial - a fair trial being the essence of due
process. Those who have taken the time to investigate have
found that judges who hear civil commitment cases without a
jury always or almost always automatically and routinely
commit everyone doctors recommend for commitment without a
real attempt to use their own judgment to determine the
appropriateness of the incarceration; and the doctors making
the recommendations for commitment are often motivated by
the income they earn from the commitment rather than benefit
to the "patient" or society. Some courts have ruled that
due process does require a right to demand a jury trial in
civil commitment for mental illness. Additionally, every
state in the U.S.A. that does not provide for a right to
jury trial by statute - except Louisiana and New Jersey -
have a state constitutional provision that by its terms
guarantees a right to jury trial in civil (as well as
criminal) cases, at least to the extent it existed at common
law; and, as the highest courts of New York, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington have found, people accused of "lunacy"
were tried by juries at common law. Unfortunately, these
state constitutional provisions are not enforced in every
state that has one. Some state supreme courts have even
disregarded the plain language of their state constitutions
protecting the right to a jury trial when the right is
asserted in a case of civil commitment for alleged mental
illness, e.g., Florida and West Virginia.
If the right to a jury trial in involuntary civil
commitment for mental illness is not currently recognized in
the state where you live, write to the state senator and
state representative that represent the part of the state
where you live explaining that lack of a right to jury trial
leaves people vulnerable to unjustified involuntary
psychiatric commitment.

end excerpt.

Clearly (at least to me, jury trials have been many times
found not to be limited to criminal trials. What this means
as regards permit cases I cannot say, but there certainly
seems to be precedent for trial by jury in other than
criminal matters.


Thunder
gary
2004-04-04 18:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation of
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I agree
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail without a
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
Post by Green Gestapo
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-08 18:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday
morning
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation of
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I agree
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail without a
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
It's the whole "deal with it" attitude that makes you and the whole lot
nothing but slaves. I pity all of you. Freedom belongs only to those
who refuse to submit to tyranny, not to those who "deal with it."

-- Berkano
gary
2004-04-18 01:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what
your
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the
reg....so
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for
a
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday
morning
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation
of
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I
agree
Post by gary
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail without a
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
It's the whole "deal with it" attitude that makes you and the whole lot
nothing but slaves. I pity all of you. Freedom belongs only to those
who refuse to submit to tyranny, not to those who "deal with it."
ther law it the law ...like it or not ...and your not going to change
thge law by bitching about it here like ignorant second rate jailk
house attorneys .... if you think youyr getting a jury trial your as
stupid as you appear by your ppostings ....its not going to
happen........but talk is cheap when your giving someone else
advice....but hell...dont listen to the folks who have been there done
that ......listen to the guys who dont even show up at gatherings
....keep themselves safe by staying away...then tell those who get
tickets how they should fight them.....fucking hippocrites
Post by gary
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by gary
Post by gary
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what
your
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the
reg....so
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for
a
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday
morning
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail,
confiscation
Post by gary
Post by gary
of
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and
unalienable.
Post by gary
Post by gary
Post by gary
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I
agree
Post by gary
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail
without a
Post by gary
Post by gary
Post by gary
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
It's the whole "deal with it" attitude that makes you and the whole lot
nothing but slaves. I pity all of you. Freedom belongs only to those
who refuse to submit to tyranny, not to those who "deal with it."
ther law it the law ...like it or not ...
That's just it, their regs ARE NOT THE LAW. Get it?
Post by gary
and your not going to change
thge law by bitching about it here
I never said I was trying to change "the law" or anything else. You
still miss the point. The regs ARE NOT law. Going to prison without a
trial by jury is NOT authorized by law. I know the law, know it well,
know it forward and backward. It is the FS, the lawyers, and the judges
that either don't know or totally reject the law because PEOPLE LET
THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
Post by gary
like ignorant second rate jailk
house attorneys .... if you think youyr getting a jury trial your as
stupid as you appear by your ppostings ....its not going to
happen........
I am beginning to suspect you are the victim of MK Ultra experiments or
an abduction because you are not speaking based on the facts and the
law.
Post by gary
but talk is cheap when your giving someone else
advice....
Another, yet another one of your false accusations. I am not giving
anyone advice. I'm posting discussion to Usenet. Falsely accuse me
again and I am killfiling you. I cannot stand a false accuser. I have
made if abundantly clear that I am not offering advice. My posts here
are part of a public discussion, not advice.
Post by gary
but hell...dont listen to the folks who have been there done
that ......
I've been through more "legal" battles than you could shake a stick at
. . . with not just my liberty on the line, but my life on the line. So
go ahead, preach at me all you want.
Post by gary
listen to the guys who dont even show up at gatherings
....keep themselves safe by staying away...then tell those who get
tickets how they should fight them.....fucking hippocrites
I was there with Tallahassee Oates [2K3] when he was spiralling into a
violent tirade. I've had cops point guns at me on several occasions for
doing nothing more than minding my own business. You do not know Jack.
Guns don't scare me, either. The last cop who assaulted me with a gun,
I screamed at him to put his gun down or point it somewhere else. I did
not cower, I defied that SOB with his tinsel star and official immunity
to murder under color of law. I remember yelling also, "Who do you
think you are, pointing that weapon at me?" The retard was going to
shoot me over nothing, because he was "scared."

I remember the time that I left my house to go jogging like I did every
day, and a cop rolls up onto the sidewalk, cuts me off, and gives me
the whole "hands in the air" drill. "Why are you running, he asks?"

"Because I'm jogging, like I do here near the park everyday, like the
other hundred people who run by here every day, you idiot!"

Suffice it to say I have not a very high opinion of most cops. Having
guns and threats pointed at me for jogging, running, walking, sitting,
reading, etc. is not what I call effective law enforcement.

Have you ever looked down the barrel of a gun in the hands of a moron?
Then don't preach to me and accuse me of "hiding." I was at the last
gathering location right out in the open, fulling expecting some
nit-wit to draw down on me, as happens so often because I happen to
stand up for my rights instead of cowering like a whimpering, wounded
pussy-cat.

Maybe you can just go practice saying, "Yassa boss. Yassa boss, right
away, sir." It suits your arguments.

-- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Green Gestapo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 04:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Boy, gary's weak. The law is the law. If you weren't strong enough to
prove your case oh well. But for me, the fights not over till its
over. BTW I did have a jury case in L.A. traffic court you are wrong
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation of
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I agree
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail without a
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
Post by Green Gestapo
-- Berkano
gary
2004-04-18 01:33:56 UTC
Permalink
c Ive read your postings I already know what little there is to know
about your backround...Ive won my cases ....and I didnt give in....so
who doesnt know who.....but no one is getting a jury trial for a
permit offence .
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Boy, gary's weak. The law is the law. If you weren't strong enough to
prove your case oh well. But for me, the fights not over till its
over. BTW I did have a jury case in L.A. traffic court you are wrong
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you
odnr
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had
ever
Post by gary
Post by Green Gestapo
Post by gary
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
When any liberty interest is threatened (fines, jail, confiscation of
property) the right to a trial by jury is absolute and unalienable.
obviously youve never been in court charged under the permit regs
before...I dint get a jusry...plunker didnt get a
jury...badger...beck jonee nor principal got jurys ..... and no
matter how you protest your not going to get one either ....I think
cheryls case would be better served by dealing wi th the reality o f
the situation then by talking about how things should be .....I agree
that its not right that we can be charged and sent to jail without a
jury trial....but thats the way it is at this point and untill the
regs are changed thats the way its going to be ....so deal with it
....but thinking that your going to get a jury trail is just wasting
your time and energy
Post by Green Gestapo
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:36:04 UTC
Permalink
-- Gary the ProphIt of Dark senTences said --
Post by gary
c Ive read your postings I already know what little there is to know
about your backround...Ive won my cases ....and I didnt give in....so
who doesnt know who.....but no one is getting a jury trial for a
permit offence .
Gary, why do you keep prophesying evil, you negative prophet you . . .

-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:57:43 UTC
Permalink
who invited you to the party. You do not know me nor do you know my
background so stfu and back out. We are willing to try not just give
up which is what I get out of your post. If you want to be the
victimized loser fine, just don't drag us down
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you odnr
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had ever
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
Post by Landing Light
Anyone care to translate this into English?
I'll try, Sheryl Gardner also known as Summerbreeze was given a
ticket for attending the 2002 Rainbow National which was a gathering
of 75 or more people on forrest land without a permit. She was never
properly served and was accused (and aquitted)of failure to appear in
court. In June an arrest warrant was issued and early this year she
was arrested and released on $10000 bail in Northern California. On
the 17th she traveled to Marquette Michigan to face the charges
before
a judge. she pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial which
will
happen in May. Stay tuned
Let me elaborate a mite . . .
The court in Michigan could not obtain jurisdiction because Cheryl
refused the accepted offer of the right to a trial before a magistrate.
Instead she demanded a trial before a jury of her peers in an Aricle
III court.
Thus the US Attorney's office can't even legally prosecute the case
because none of them have taken an oath to defend the constitution and
Cheryl would not sign the papers they demanded that would contract her
to their forum.
It's a real legal pickle for the state.
The state is trying to find a judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office to arbitrate a real trial by jury. Without such a sworn judge,
there can be no moving forward.
If they can't set up an article III matter, they will have to dismiss
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
All because Cheryl refused to sign anything . . .
Stay tuned.
-- Berkano
gary
2004-04-18 01:43:45 UTC
Permalink
IM not quite sure who you think your are ...or who ou think your
daddy is ....but you got the wrong guy if you think you can tell me
to back out of anything.....and I dont know whos party you think this
is .. but again asshole youve picked the wrong guy....Ive been
ticketed...Ive been in court as have many other rainbows... we nbow
what we are talking about ....you "hide from the cops ...never take a
chance...I'll advise others and take no person risk" assholes piss me
off....where were you when garrick or prinsipal or badger or
joannie..or any of the others went to jail....???.....did you stand up
and take a ticket so that ytou had a chance to defend your beliefs in
court.....I dint see yo9u when I got my ticket....dont tell me about
the courts and what you "THINK" the law says ..or can do.... they can
do what the fuck they want to do...and you best learn it ....your not
going to chance the laws by bithcing about them on agr...like anyone
gioves shit ...all you do is give bad advice to people stupid to
listen to you and your hoard.... yes I dont know you....buit if you
had ever done something to serve the family I sure as hell woulod know
you....if not by face then by name ....but your right ..I dont know
you...Ive never heard of you ..and why is that...cause you aint done
nothing to help no one else ... you aint served at the gather...so
yeh.. I dont ....and big loss....step up and take a ticket or
two....go to court...accually fight the fight...and them maybe I'll
care to listen to youy becuase then you will have shown your
sincerity...and dedication....instead of your ignornate oppinions or
something you know nothing about ......
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
who invited you to the party. You do not know me nor do you know my
background so stfu and back out. We are willing to try not just give
up which is what I get out of your post. If you want to be the
victimized loser fine, just don't drag us down
Post by gary
youy guys are nuts ....you just csant get a jury trial under the
permit reg...Idont care how much you bitch and moan...or what your
ignorant oppinion might be ...it just cant happen under the reg....so
all you jail house lawyers vcan give all the lousy advice you
want.....it just shows your ignorance if the situation....... you odnr
get a jury teial for a traffic ticket.. and you cant get one for a
permit violation...just aint going to happen....if any of you had ever
gotten a ticket ...youd know this ....but like most monday morning
quarter backs ...your all talk...but never got in the game ...
Post by Landing Light
Anyone care to translate this into English?
I'll try, Sheryl Gardner also known as Summerbreeze was given a
ticket for attending the 2002 Rainbow National which was a gathering
of 75 or more people on forrest land without a permit. She was never
properly served and was accused (and aquitted)of failure to appear in
court. In June an arrest warrant was issued and early this year she
was arrested and released on $10000 bail in Northern California. On
the 17th she traveled to Marquette Michigan to face the charges
before
Post by gary
Post by Landing Light
a judge. she pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial which
will
Post by gary
Post by Landing Light
happen in May. Stay tuned
Let me elaborate a mite . . .
The court in Michigan could not obtain jurisdiction because Cheryl
refused the accepted offer of the right to a trial before a magistrate.
Instead she demanded a trial before a jury of her peers in an Aricle
III court.
Thus the US Attorney's office can't even legally prosecute the case
because none of them have taken an oath to defend the constitution and
Cheryl would not sign the papers they demanded that would contract her
to their forum.
It's a real legal pickle for the state.
The state is trying to find a judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office to arbitrate a real trial by jury. Without such a sworn judge,
there can be no moving forward.
If they can't set up an article III matter, they will have to dismiss
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
All because Cheryl refused to sign anything . . .
Stay tuned.
-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 03:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Lets also remember that that judge must have a bond on file with the
state. An oath of office and a bond
Post by Landing Light
Anyone care to translate this into English?
I'll try, Sheryl Gardner also known as Summerbreeze was given a
ticket for attending the 2002 Rainbow National which was a gathering
of 75 or more people on forrest land without a permit. She was never
properly served and was accused (and aquitted)of failure to appear in
court. In June an arrest warrant was issued and early this year she
was arrested and released on $10000 bail in Northern California. On
the 17th she traveled to Marquette Michigan to face the charges
before
a judge. she pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial which
will
happen in May. Stay tuned
Let me elaborate a mite . . .
The court in Michigan could not obtain jurisdiction because Cheryl
refused the accepted offer of the right to a trial before a magistrate.
Instead she demanded a trial before a jury of her peers in an Aricle
III court.
Thus the US Attorney's office can't even legally prosecute the case
because none of them have taken an oath to defend the constitution and
Cheryl would not sign the papers they demanded that would contract her
to their forum.
It's a real legal pickle for the state.
The state is trying to find a judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office to arbitrate a real trial by jury. Without such a sworn judge,
there can be no moving forward.
If they can't set up an article III matter, they will have to dismiss
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
All because Cheryl refused to sign anything . . .
Stay tuned.
-- Berkano
Green Gestapo
2004-04-18 16:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Lets also remember that that judge must have a bond on file with the
state. An oath of office and a bond
Judge Hollows at Sacramento did, I believe, but I don't think Cheryl
knew enough about the law to get him to dispatch the case there. If I
had been there in chains, it would have been a sweaty time for the
prosecution . . . the cat would have been out of the bag squealing for
some meow mix at the table of the state . . .

-- Berkano
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Landing Light
Anyone care to translate this into English?
I'll try, Sheryl Gardner also known as Summerbreeze was given a
ticket for attending the 2002 Rainbow National which was a
gathering
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Landing Light
of 75 or more people on forrest land without a permit. She was never
properly served and was accused (and aquitted)of failure to appear in
court. In June an arrest warrant was issued and early this year she
was arrested and released on $10000 bail in Northern California. On
the 17th she traveled to Marquette Michigan to face the charges
before
a judge. she pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial which
will
happen in May. Stay tuned
Let me elaborate a mite . . .
The court in Michigan could not obtain jurisdiction because Cheryl
refused the accepted offer of the right to a trial before a
magistrate.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Landing Light
Instead she demanded a trial before a jury of her peers in an Aricle
III court.
Thus the US Attorney's office can't even legally prosecute the case
because none of them have taken an oath to defend the constitution and
Cheryl would not sign the papers they demanded that would contract her
to their forum.
It's a real legal pickle for the state.
The state is trying to find a judge who has taken the judicial oath of
office to arbitrate a real trial by jury. Without such a sworn judge,
there can be no moving forward.
If they can't set up an article III matter, they will have to
dismiss
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Landing Light
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
All because Cheryl refused to sign anything . . .
Stay tuned.
-- Berkano
m***@sbcglobal.net
2004-04-17 04:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Check out her attorney I was told she was off the case.
Anyone interested in discussing what pre-trial motions that might be useful
could be reccommended to Cheyrl's atty.?
Post by David
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Marquette)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-M -8-ALL
Docket as of March 26, 2004 7:15 pm
USA v. Cheryl Gardner Filed: 02/18/03
Case Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley
Joy D. Verlinden
Deft's attorney
Federlein & Keranen PC
122 W Spring
Marquette, MI 49855
Paul D. Lochner
US Attorney's Office
U.S. Department of Justice
The Law Building
330 Ionia Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 208
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0208
Kent
Nils R. Kessler, Asst. U.S.
Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
Department of Justice
Republic Bank Bldg, 2nd Fl.
1930 U.S. 41 W
Marquette, MI 49855
2/18/03 1 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner; defendant charged with Use of
Forest Service Land W/Out Permit (Rainbow gathering);
arraignment set for 3/28/03 at 9:00 a.m.; trial set for
3/28/03 at 9:00 a.m.
4/7/03 2 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner; arraignment reset to 6/5/03 at
9:00 a.m.; trial reset to 6/5/03 at 9:00 a.m.
counsel, deft Gardner, USM and USP
5/19/03 3 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner ; arraignment reset to 6/5/03 at
p.m.; trial reset to 6/5/03 at 1:00 p.m.
6/5/03 -- MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley; date
scheduled for initial appearance, arraignment and bench
trial; defendant failed to appear; government requests
warrant of arrest to issue; request granted; S. Kivela,
recorder
6/5/03 -- ARREST WARRANT issued for deft Cheryl Gardner by Magistrate
Judge Timothy P. Greeley
10/20/03 4 MAIL RETURNED [3-1] addressed to Cheryl Gardner
2/9/04 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE from ED/California with copy of
order directing defendant to appear in WD/MI on 2/17/04 at
3:00 p.m.
2/17/04 6 NOTICE OF COUNSEL ASSIGNMENT by Federal Public Defender;
deft Cheryl Gardner will be represented by Joy D.
Verlinden;
w/cert of svc
3/1/04 7 NOTICE of hearing by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley as
to deft Cheryl Gardner;initial appearance/ arraignment set
for 3/17/04 at 3:00 p.m.
3/11/04 8 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for deft Cheryl Gardner by atty Joy D.
Verlinden w/prf of svc
3/17/04 -- MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley first
appearance of Cheryl Gardner; attorney Verlinden appointed
and present; dft appears on warrant of arrest issued; dft
Cheryl Gardner arraigned; not guilty plea entered; trial
to be set 5/12/04; motions due 4/9/04; scheduling order to
issue; P. Chant, recorder
3/17/04 9 APPEARANCE BOND (PR) by deft Cheryl Gardner (
3/17/04 10 CJA Form 20 Copy 4 (Appointment of Counsel) for deft Cheryl
Gardner appointing Joy Verlinden
3/26/04 11 ORDER (1 pg) by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley;
pretrial conference set for 5/12/04 at 9:00 a.m.; motion
filing ddl set for 4/9/04; trial set for 5/12/04 at 9:00
a.m.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...