Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
 

Jury Summons Response Letter

January 14, 2003

Ms. Gloria Gomez
Director, Juror Services Division
Office of Jury Commissioner
320 W. Temple Street, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012-3278

Re; JID Number – 123456789

Dear Ms. Gomez,
I have recently received a “Juror Summons” in the mail. This is my response to the Summons. In order to know if I am “qualified” to be a juror, I must complete “section A” – the Affidavit. I notice that I am expected to sign the Affidavit under penalty of perjury. In light of this fact, and to insure that I fully understand the legal terms being used on the Affidavit and the nature of the duty that may fall upon me in this matter, I will need your office to provide me with certain information.

a. In section “A”, question 1, I am being asked if I am a “citizen of the United States”. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “citizen of the United States” in question 1. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

b. In section “A”, question 3, I am being asked if I am a “resident” of Los Angeles County. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term “resident” in question 3. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

c. In section “A” (step 2) it instructs a person to sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury. Please provide me with your authority to compel me to affix my signature to any document (including the affidavit) under penalty of perjury.

You may mail your response to address shown at the top of this page. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,

Joe Citizen

*******************************************

(Blog Masters Note: In an e-mail from Frank ‘Austin’ England III, dated 18 November, 2009)
 

You can’t renounce something that you’ve never been . . . keep in mind one very simple issue . . . the term of art used by all bueaucrats, from employees to the law merchants sitting HIGH on the bench (ALTER OF COMMERCE) misleading the public to believe the said public are subject to lay themselves prostrate in front of said weasels to be summarily dealt with as a FING SUBJECT. . . and to be “TREATED AS” said SUBJECT. Terms such as “Treated as”, “subrogated”, “volunteered”, “agreed”, “traversed”, “joined with” and the BIG ONE, “PERSON!” are all terms establishing a rebuttable presumption as to the term which by operation of law is merely PRESUMED BY THE COMMERCIAL PROCESS. . . the problem arises when dealing with the lower levels of this for profit corporate process, being the “underlings” and “operatives” believing you are in fact IRREVOCABLY SUBJECT TO to the system they earn their living to promote and acquire the regular paycheck ad infinitum. YOU MUST ALWAYS OBJECT AND REBUT, QUESTION AND KNOW THE ANSWER BEFOR YOU ASK THE QUESTION!

I recieved a jury summons last week . . . presonally went to the courthouse two days ago and confronted the juror clerk, asking questions that completely dissasembled any presumed right to compel service on a jury for a pittance, when that jury would be serving a – for profit statute/merchant court for fun and and profit.

Told her I would make a counter offer for my services at the rate of $1,000.00 per day, tax exempt. Also pointed out that nowhere was there a statute citation to enforce or compel juriy service . . . unless she could show that statute to me. She said it was the duty of the citizen . . . I asked if the term Citizen was spelled with a capital “C” or a lower case “c” . . . she had no idea . . . I also pointed out (and showed her) that the enactment dates of the entire Court and Jury stats, rules and regs were to be omitted in accordance with the United States Rules of Style . . . she said that this was the STATE OF OREGON and those rules didn’t apply here . . . I showed her that the STATE OF OREGON is a subsidiary overlying for profit corporate doing business entity and a subsidiary corporate creation cited in the statutes as “this state” existing in “the airspace above” “The State of Oregon” and thereby subject to its parent corporation the territorial District of Columbia . . . YES THE PEOPLE YOU WORK FOR ARE PERFORMING IN THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THE LAND WHERE THE PEOPLE EXERCISE STANDING ON THE LAND . . .

At this point she ignored me, went back to her computer and said for me not to worry about the jury duty summons . . . I tossed the summons on her desk wished her a nice day and left . . . ARE WE HAVING FUN YET!