A Critical Analysis of a "Demand to Quash"

The following “Demand to Quash” was written by an acquaintance who’s a good man and on the right track.  The demand is fairly well-written and contains some good case cites concerning fraud.  It’s a document that I, myself might’ve written, say, five years ago.  But today, I read the document as see so many elements that I regard as errors or omissions that it strikes me as extremely unlikely that this document will succeed in “quashing” a particular presentment by gov-co. Nevertheless, this document offers a lot of insight–if only into the comparative differences between my own theories and those of someone else.

I’ve added a host of colorized hightlights and blue, bracketed comments.  Everything highlighted in pink indicates those elements that strike me as mistaken or beyond my current understanding.  The other colorization reflects degress of personal emphasis.

Cause #08CL-2005

The State of Texas              §           In the County Court at Law                                                          §

vs                     §       In and for §

Paul Marion McCalib                       §           Kaufman County, Texas

DEMAND TO QUASH PRESENTMENT DUE TO FRAUD

I, me, myself, Paul-Marion: McCalib family, a man, sui juris, a law abiding, peaceful man of faith, come in my ministerial capacity, as a “Minister of Righteousness for the Most High G-d” in propria persona, with G-d as my witness, and stand today, as the Accused, at arms length, not as the DEFENDANT, known as, PAUL MARION MCCALIB© or as Paul Marion McCalib, the person, the legal fiction, a fiction in law, an artificial entity, a corporation, the Strawman, a Dummy, et.al.

I, me, Paul-Marion: McCalib, am without the benefit of counsel, or have an Attorney of Record; consequently, I make this DEMAND TO QUASH PRESENTMENT DUE TO FRAUD.

Further, I state for the record, I am not pro se, I am me, a sovereign, a free man and enjoy “equal footing” with other sovereigns, not legal fictions, fictions in law, et.al.

Pursuant to, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54).

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

Pursuant to Chapman v United States, 500 U.S. 114 L Ed 2d 524, 111 S Ct (1991); et.al.

“… the letter of a law indicates exactly what the law means.”

Pursuant to Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).

“Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.”

Pursuant to Texas Constitution Art. I § 10. Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

“In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury … shall have the right to be heard by himself by counsel, or both …”

Further pursuant to TRCP 7. May appear by Attorney

“Any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein, either in person [which “person”?  In propria persona or pro se?] or by an attorney of the court”.

[Note that The Constitution of The State of Texas (the People's law) provides a right to be "heard" and a right of "counsel" while the statutory law found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure #7 provides a right to "appear" and a right to an "attorney".  Within the boundaries of "The State," you have a right to "counsel".  "In this state," you have only a right to an attorney.]

Pursuant to Mempha v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128.

“The right to counsel exists not only at the trial thereof, but also at every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected.”

[I’d bet that “substantial” rights only attach to living men under the Constitution of The State of Texas and might even be or include “unalienable Rights”.  If so, I’ll bet that “persons” and “subjects” of “this state” have no “substantial rights” and no claim to “counsel”. Instead, the “persons” of this state are entitled by the TRCPs to an “attorney” of “this state”.]

I. DENIAL OF CORPORATION BY AFFIDAVIT – DEFENDANT IS A FICTION

Pursuant to TRCP 52 ALLEGING A CORPORATION on July 23, 2002 A.D., I, me, Paul-Marion: McCalib family,  denied by Notice, that I am not a corporation of the “UNITED STATES” or any of its entities. On December 6, 2000 A.D., I, me, Paul-Marion: McCalib family, did copyright the legal fiction known as PAUL MARION MCCALIB© and all the derivatives thereof removing them from “commerce”, an idem sonas, a person, a legal fiction, fiction in law, et.al. alleged by usurper HARRISON, et.al. who purposefully with malice, intentionally falsified the commercial record without a valid lawful contract, in a blatant attempt to harm and to extort unlawful funds (Federal Reserve Notes) contrary to the following laws.

[Paul admits that the defendant is a fiction, but then denies that HE is a “corporation”.  He seeks to thereby avoid being tried as if he were a fiction.  I disagree with his analysis.  I agree that the court views the defendant as a fiction or “persona ficta”.  However, I disagree with the belief that the court see the man as either a fiction or as the defendant.  I suspect that court sees the man (“Adask”) as the living being who is required to animate the fiction (“ADASK”).  No “fiction” can “appear” in court without a living man to animate that fiction.  That’s why lawyers must represent corporations in court.  When the man denies being a “fiction” or “corporation” the court essentially says, “Well, duhhhh . . . as if I couldn't tell.”  The court depends on the man to be real.  The court needs the living man (“Adask”) to animate the fictional defendant (“ADASK”).  The court does not see you as the “fiction”; they see you as the fiduciary for the fiction who represents and animates the fiction.  Without you, the living man, the fiction can’t appear—at least not until after you’ve hired a lawyer to represent the fiction.]

Pursuant to TCCrP § 43.02. Payable in money:

“All recognizances, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures of a pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only.”

Further pursuant to 12 USC 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes; receiving notes of other associations:

“…the terms “lawful money” and “lawful money of the United States” shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States…”

In addition 12 USC § 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption:

“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board [Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System] for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal reserve bank.”

[But are “Federal reserve notes,” “Federal Reserve Notes” and “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” all synonymous?  I don’t think so.  I doubt that the FRNs in your wallet are the same as the Frn’s found at 12 USC 411.

Further, the author neglects to mention Article 1.10.1 of  The Constitution of the United States which declares in part, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."  Thus, the federal Constitution mandates that the States of the Union cannot conduct their financial affairs (levy taxes, impose fines or pay its help) except with a currency that is, or is backed by, gold and silver coins.  Given that gold and silver coins are virtually unknown in our modern economy and given that the Constituion has not been amended to repeal Articlle 1.10.1, modern state governments are either 1) acting unconstitutionally when they impose fines denominated in legal tender (Federal Reserve Notes); or 2) aren't government of States of the Union, but are instead government of other, alternative "states".

Thus, whenever a "state" is tries to collect taxes or pay fines in a currency (FRNs) that's not backed by gold or silver coin, that "state" has some 'splainnin' to do.  If the "state" is imposing fines or taxes without gold or silver coin, then either that "state" is violating The Constitution of the United States (and that's a No-No), or that "state" isn't really a State of the Union and therefore has NO AUTHORITY to proceed against you unless you consent to the process.  So, which is it?  A "state" that violates the federal Constitution or a "state" that's without authority?

If you raise Article 1.10.1, I believe you've  raised a rock-and-a-hard-place issue for the state government.  Paul's on the right track by raising his "money" issues in this  "Demand to Quash," but he's neglected to include what may be the single strongest issue concerning money:  Article 1.10.1.]

Pursuant to Texas Rules Civil Procedure 52 ALLEGING A CORPORATION

“An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation and however created.”

[Again, while I can't prove it, I believe that the court does not suppose that Paul is a corporation or other fictional entity.  The court believes that "Paul" is a man who has voluntarily agreed to represent the corporation/fictional defendant named "PAUL".  As the fiduciary or representative for the fictional defendant "PAUL," the living man's ("Paul's) rights are largely irrelevant beyond his right to resign as representative, fiduciary or surety for "PAUL".]

Further, my “Verified Declaration in the Nature of an Affidavit of Truth in Commerce etc” was recorded and accepted by DALLAS COUNTY CLERK EARL BULLOCK in the DALLAS COUNTY RECORD which stands uncontested.

Pursuant to Morris v. National Cash Register Co. 44 S.W.2d 433.

“Uncontested allegation of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true.”

Pursuant to United States vs Fox, 94 U.S. 315.

“…the term “person” does not include the sovereign. Statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

[Thus, the 14^th Amendment “persons” are probably subjects rather than sovereigns.]

Pursuant to State vs. Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513.

“No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United States or the state courts and any such action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law.”

[I NEED to read that case. If I'm correct in believing that "this state" is a defacto, privated "state" based on an "implied charitable trust" (see the Senator Harkins letter on this blog) and is something entirely different from The States of the Union that are the de jure "States" referenced in The Constitution of The United States, then all of the courts of "this state" are not "unconstitutional"--they are "non-constitutional" courts under the implied charitable trust.

If so, then anyone who can properly prove that he's a "sovereign" can charge anyone who tries to sue or prosecute him in one of the "non-constitutional" courts of "this state" with Barratry.

IF that argument can be verified, we could theoretically stop the entire "legal process" of "this state".]

Pursuant to Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers [not authority] are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

[The “sovereigns” are the beneficiaries of the constitutions of The State and The USA.

See also, Chisholm v Georgia--a Supreme Court case from A.D. 1792 or A.D. 1793 that declares the people of the United States of America to be "sovereigns without subjects" and "joint-tenants in the soveriegnty". ]

II. THE PLAINTIFF IS A LEGAL FICTION AND A FRAUD

THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS created THE STATE OF TEXAS, which does not exist, is unreal, intentionally misapplies the law of the land and practices nihilism.

[I doubt that Paul can prove that the STATE BAR created THE STATE OF TEXAS ("this state").  Without proof, his statement is irrelevant, moot, of no effect.]

The Secretary of State of the State of Texas has no record of or for THE STATE OF TEXAS [“as an entity licensed to do business within The State of Texas”??], thus THE STATE OF TEXAS is a fraud, which I do not recognize or accept, and object to as THE STATE OF TEXAS has no standing and cannot make an appearance in or at law. 

[I’ll bet the "STATE" ("this state") might be able to appear “at law” but not “in law”.

I doubt that the fact that the “STATE” is not listed as a recognized corportion with the Secretary of State constitutes evidence of FRAUD.  As presented (by allegation without supporting evidence or even argument) Paul’s conclusion of “fraud” is probably incorrect.  For example, the fact that a man might be driving without a driver’s license may be some sort of “offense” but it is not necessarily evidence of fraud.  Given that most of what follows in this "Demand" describes “fraud,” Paul should do a better job of alleging that “fraud” has actually taken place.]

Pursuant to U.S. v Throckmorton, 98 US 61.

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”

Pursuant to 37 Am Jur 2d §8:

“Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated,

in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which

it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY FOURTH EDITION (1951) defines “FRAUD” as;

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

Brainerd Dispatch Newspaper Co. v. Crow Wing County, 196 Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780.

[But “this state” does not “intentionally pervert the truth.  The gov-co of "this state" is clearly deceptive, but by means of ALL-UPPER-CASE names, addresses like TX, use of FRNs, etc., “this state” gives plenty of notice that it is NOT “The State”.  Thus, no fraud is apparent.

If Paul had clearly and expressly alleged that his prosecutors were not The State and he wasn’t subject to “this state” and the gov-co continued as if they they were The State, there’d be grounds for claiming fraud.  But unless "this state" can be shown to have clearly acted if it were “The State,” charging “fraud” is unlikely to work.]

Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another.

Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 160 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067.

[The de facto “STATE” will probably argue that because the process is not “in the name of The State of Texas” that they’ve given sufficient notice, Paul did not exercise his right of inquiry, and they are therefore not acting deceptively.]

A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions [to a sovereign??] or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.  Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2d 150.

[According to the A.D. 1811 case of Dixon v The United States, the word “suggestions” applies to “sovereigns”.  Should any “sovereign” facing Notice of prosecution expressly asks/inquires if the prosecution is “suggesting” some false/fraudulent thing in order to defraud the “sovereign”?  Such question would cause the prosecution to respond to 1) allegation that accused is a “sovereign” and 2) prosecution is making a “suggestion” (to the sovereign).  What if the accused were to then offer to negotiate as is his right as sovereign?]

“Bad faith” and fraud are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.

Joiner v. Joiner, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W. 2d 903, 914, 915.

It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, or resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury.  As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional.  Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 67 N.Y. 292;   Alexander v. Church, 53 Conn. 561, 4 A. 103;  Studer v. Bleistein, 115 N.Y. 316, 22 N.E. 243, 7 L.R.A. 702; McNair v. Southern States Finance Co.,191 N.C. 710, 133 S.E. 85, 88.

It comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a breach of a legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

Coppo v. Coppo, 163 Misc. 249, 297 N.Y.S. 744, 750.

And includes anything calculated to deceive, whether it be a single act or combination of circumstances, whether the suppression of truth or suggestion [to a sovereign?] of what is false, whether it  be by falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth, or by look or gesture.  People v. Gilmore, 345 Ill. 28, 177, N.E. 710, 717.

Fraud, as applied to contracts [in law], is the case of an error bearing on material part of the contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjust advantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other.   Civil Code La. Art.1847.  Strauss v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 157 La. 661, 102 So. 861, 865; Jesse French Plano & Organ Co. v. Gibbon, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W. 1185, 1187.

[“Convenience” is a benefit; an “inconvenience” is probably a deprivation of benefits.]

Fraud, in the sense of a court of equity, properly includes all acts, omissions, and concealments [refusal to respond to inquiry after notice?] which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justify reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.  1 Story, Eq.Jur. § 187; Howard v. West Jersey & S. S. R. Co. 102 N.J.Eq. 517 141 A.755, 757.

[“or confidence justly reposed” suggests that one of the first questions in response to any Notice is “Can I trust you to tell me the truth in these matters insofar as the truth is known to you?”  “Can I trust you to tell me if you do not know the truth in these matters?”  By asking the questions as to whether the Notice sender can be trusted, we force that sender to admit or deny that he can be trusted. If he says he can’t be trusted, we can probably ignore his Notices.  If he says he can be trusted, then we will have created and subjected him to a confidential and/or fiduciary relationship whereon we may justly repose our confidence.

In fact, I've just now read two affidavits from witnesses to homocide in New York where in both cases,the police officer's first question to the witnesses was "Are you going to answer my questions truthfully?"  Both times, the witnesses answered "Yes" and thereby created a "confidential" or trust relationship with the police officer wherein the officer was the "beneficiary" who could "reasonably rely" on the truthfulness of the statements made by the witness-fiduciary.  If the witness lied, he could later be charged with "breach of fiduciary obligation" to the police officer.

Implication:  If you are asking questions in response to a Notice, you're first question should be "Are you going to answer the following questions truthfully?"  By posing that first question, you create the Notice's author's fiduciary obligation to tell the truth.  If the Notice author says "No, I will not tell the truth," you can probably disregard the Notice.  If the the Notice author says, "Yes, I will tell the truth," you've just created a fiduciary relationship with the Notice author where any lie can subject him to suit for breach of an express trust relationship.

We be baaad, baby . . . .]

Pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Texas1876 PREAMBLE

“… the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Pursuant to Texas Rules Civil Procedure 2 SCOPE OF RULES.

“These rules shall govern the procedure in the justice, county, and district courts of the “State of Texas” in all actions of a civil nature…”

[I can't prove it, but I believe "The State of Texas" is de jure and one of the States of the Union, while "the State of Texas" is de facto and can signify the fictional or territorial "state" also referred to as "this state".

I may be going too far, here, but I am persuaded that the difference betwe"T" in the definite article "The," you might be inviting serious trouble.  On the other hand, if you can begin to understand and recognize the difference between, "The" and "the," you just might be able to avoid the jurisdiction of "this state".en "The State of Texas" and "the State of Texas" may be enormous and critical.  If you don't recognize the significance of the capital

For the moment, it appears to me that there's only one proper name for this State of Union:  "The State of Texas". All other names ("TEXAS," "STATE OF TEXAS," "TX," "Texas," and even "State of Texas") are at best ambigous and more likely signify "this state"--the alternative, territorial "state" where we can transact in legal tender (FRNs) rather than lawful money and enjoy the "benefit" of discharging rather than paying and extinguishing our debts.]

Pursuant to Barker CATV Constr., Inc. v. Ampro, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex.App-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, n.p.h.).

“TRCP 15” seems to conflict with [TRCP] 99(b), which states the citation shall (1) be styled “The State of Texas”, and (8) be directed to the defendant …. [11] The citation … in this case is a preprinted form addressed to the sheriff …  as well as to the defendant …”

[That’s sneaky.  I’d like to read that case.  Either the rules do or do not conflict.  “Seems” to conflict suggests an ambiguity where something “seems” but is not.  I’d be very much surprised if the citation was both “to be directed to the defendant” but was also addressed to the sheriff by mistake.  There’s a hint here that the sheriff is somehow related to the “defendant”.  Maybe the sheriff is presumed to represent or know where to find the fictional defendants like “ADASK”.  Maybe the sheriff goes after the fictional defendant and the notice to the purported Defendant puts the man “Adask” on alert that he will soon be asked (or detained) by the sheriff to act as fiduciary or surety for the defendant “ADASK”.

Note that the requirement is that the citation be “directed” (not “addressed”) to the defendant.  It may be that the sheriff is part of the process for “directing” the citation to the defendant.  It may be that “addressing” the citation to the “defendant” may be a second way of serving Notice on the “defendant” (“ADASK”) by means of the man “Adask”.]

Pursuant to Texas Rules Civil Procedure 15 WRITS and PROCESS.

“The style of all writs and process shall be “The State of Texas”, and unless otherwise specially provided by law or these rules every such writ …”

[Paul may be providing “this state’s” defense against fraud by acknowledging that Paul knows that all lawful, “public” process must be denominated in the name of “The State of Texas”. Thus, if the process is in the name of “STATE" or even "State of Texas," Paul implicitly admits that he had sufficient notice that the process of “STATE” is private and not the same as the public process of “The State of Texas”.

If Paul admits that he had sufficient notice that “STATE”/”this state” is not The State of Texas, he has no apparent basis for claiming fraud.]

Pursuant to Texas Rules Civil Procedure 99 (b) FORM.

“The citation shall (1) be styled “The State of Texas“, (2) be signed by the clerk under seal of court [which “court”?  The word “court” in item #2 is not preceded by the definitive article “the” but in # 3, the definitive article is used], (3) contain name and location of the court, (4) show date of filing of the petition, (5) show date of issuance of citation, (6) show File number, (7) show names of parties, (8) be directed to the defendant, (9) show the name and address of attorney for plaintiff, otherwise the address of plaintiff, (10) contain the time within which these rules require the defendant to file a written answer with the clerk who issued citation, (II) contain address of the clerk [and, by implication, the address of the “file” (in “this state”)], and (12) shall notify the defendant that in case of failure of defendant to file an answer, judgment by default may be rendered for the relief demanded in the petition…”

[Note that we have the “address” of the plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney, and the clerk.  But for the court (other than the “name”) we have only a “location”.

It may be that the court does not have an address, or if it does, the parties need not know the “address” since “ex parte” contact with the court is prohibited.

I’ll bet that it would be very interesting to discover whether the address of “the court” was “in this state” or “within The State”.

As used in TRCP 99, the word “notify” tells us that the citation is at least, in part, a Notice which creates a right of inquiry that can be addressed to the clerk who issued the citation/notice.]

III. CONCLUSION

I demand that the court [which?] follow the law and order this case dismissed immediately with prejudice, as this is the court’s job and function, in a civilized society.

[What does “a civilized society” have to do with anything?  That’s no authority I recognize.

Paul’s conclusory “demand” may be self-defeating.  If the “presentment” he’s trying to quash is the “citation” referenced above, and if that “citation” is a Notice (as in procedural due process right to 1) Notice and then 2) Opportunity to be heard (hearing)), then Paul has only three options in responding to the citation/Notice: 1) ignore; 2) act; and 3) ask questions.

If Paul ignores the notice or acts on the notice, he will be deemed to have received sufficient notice and the procedural due process will take him to his “opportunity to be heard”—the hearing in the court—exactly the place Paul does not want to go.

IF that analysis is roughly accurate, Paul’s only viable option to stop procedural due process and avoid the “hearing” is to exercise his right to make inquiry based on the Notice (citation).

But by making a DEMAND in response to any Notice, Paul implies that he’s received sufficient Notice.  Once he’s had sufficient Notice, the procedural due process can proceed to the Hearing—where Paul will be defeated and found guilty and all of his fancy “Demand To Quash” will be ignored and irrelevant.

Implication:  The only response may be to ask questions.]

The Presentment of the County Court at Law, styled as Cause No. 08CL-2005 is biased, prejudiced, without contract, fraudulent due to the deeds and predatory acts of  CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY RICK HARRISON through ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHANNON KRUEGER, et.al. who disregarded due process of the law, contrary to their Oaths of Office, committed numerous crimes, intentionally, with malice, unclean hands, demonstrating bad faith by purposefully disregarding the laws of the Republic, the State of Texas, and the United States of America.

[This document has offered no evidence to support virtually any of the allegations in the previous paragraph.  Those allegations aren’t even “conclusions of law”.

His references to “the State of Texas,” and “the United States of America” are mistaken and should be “The State of Texas” and “The United States of America”.

What freakin’ “Republic” is he talking about?  Presumably the Republic of Texas, but that entity no longer exists.  In any case, he didn’t specifiy.

Paul’s done some credible research to find the various case cites on fraud and his writing and organization are pretty good.  However, his "chain" of legal reasoning is without any "links".  More, his allegations seem unsupported by any factual specificity.

Thus, even though Paul has touched on some subjectst that "this state" is loath to entertain (the money issue), it seems likely that his “Demand to Quash” will, itself, be “quashed”.]

Finally, administrative law provides the structure and procedure of government, but does not supply the substantive law that the administration is supposed to supply.  [I vaguely recall the previous sentence.  Am I being quoted??  The authority behind that statement should be cited.] I demand an independent unbiased, unprejudiced judge who recognizes separation of powers, as stated in the State of Texas and United States Constitutions as the Constitutions are the supreme law of the land.  Anything less is another  violation of due process, which is the law of the land.

[Paul can make all the “demands” he likes, but unless he asserts his standing to make such demands, those demands need not be heard.

Paul has expressly claimed to be a “sovereign” in this document and that might be sufficient grounds to warrant his demands.  However, I’d bet he has to expressly claim to be one of the “people” and a beneficiary of the Constitution of The State of Texas and/or “The Constitution of The United States” and then he’ll need to remind the judge of his Oath to support those constitutions and the judge’s resulting role as Paul’s fiduciary.   If Paul doesn’t clearly express his title to his right to make his “demands,” his demands will be ignored.

Paul alleges a "violation of due process" but neglects to specify WHICH “due process”?  There’s procedural due process and substantive due process and perhaps one or more other kinds of “due process”.  By failing to clearly specify which kind of “due process” he’s talking about, Paul leaves the term “due process” somewhat ambiguous.  Insofar as the term is ambiguous, the court is empowered to pick and choose among the possible meanings and thereby pick a “kind” of due process that does not serve Paul’s interests.

Again, if the citation/indictment is a Notice, then Paul’s DEMAND in response to such Notice may be evidence Paul has agreed that he has sufficient Notice and the process can therefore move on to the very Hearing that Paul is trying to avoid. ]

Vincit omnia veritas. Factum est. Virtute et armis.

Truth conquers all.  It is done. By courage and by arms.

With all due respect

I am,  ______________________________________Sui juris. ARR.

Paul-Marion: McCalib family, a man

C\o 1009 McDonald Drive

Garland, Texas republic

(non-domestic)[near 75041]

[For those who don't know, "ARR" is at least privately recognized by a few folks as meaning "All Rights Reserved".  Maybe "ARR" will work on a document but it sounds silly to me. It sounds like you're pretending to a pirate ("ARR, matey!").]

Notice

The use of a notary does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status [what “status”?  Specify!] in any manner.  The purpose of notary is for verification and identification only, not entrance into a foreign jurisdiction.

Jurat Acknowledgement

On this, the ____^th day of December, 2008 c.e.,  Paul-Marion: McCalib family, a man, did make, sign and seal, under penalty of perjury this “DEMAND TO QUASH PRESENTMENT DUE TO FRAUD” before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.

[“c.e.” is “common era”; which is the time standard of atheists and “this state” and perhaps those members of the Jewish faith who cannot admit that the Christ was the Messiah (which is implied by "A.D.").

The time standard for The State is “A.D.”.  By use of the “c.e.,” Paul at least implies that he’s making his demand “in this state” rather than within The State.  Paul’s reliance on “c.e.” may not be lethal, but it’s potentially self-defeating.

Paul’s reference to “the State of Texas” probably implicates “this state”.  He should probably have written “The State of Texas” to implicate The State of the Union wherein he has standing as a man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights.]

_______________________________

Seal Notary

Notice

The use of a notary does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner.

The purpose of notary is for verification and identification only, not entrance into a foreign jurisdiction.

[Foreign to what?  France, Uganda, the planet Mongo? Paul has not clearly claimed his jurisdiction within The State of Texas.  Without some specification of what Paul’s proper jurisdiction is, how can his reference to “foreign jurisdiction” have any meaning?]

Certificate of Service

This certifies that a true and correct copy of the “DEMAND TO QUASH PRESENTMENT DUE TO FRAUD” was served upon the COUNTY COURT AT LAW, KAUFMAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE, KAUFMAN, TEXAS  on this the ____th day of December, 2008 c.e.

[I’m not sure if a “copy” has any legal effect.  Paul might do better to certify that either “the true and correct original” or at least “a true and correct duplicate” was served.

And did Paul really serve this document on the “COURT”(for which he may have no “address”), or did he serve the “district court clerk” or perhaps the “court clerk”?]

Said document was sent by certified mail – return receipt requested #7006 0810 0003 9873 7061

I am, ________________________________ Sui juris, ARR.

Paul-Marion: McCalib family, a man

C\o 1009 McDonald Drive

Garland, Texas republic

non-domestic)[near 75041]

Jurat Acknowledgement

On this the ____^th day of December in the year 2008 c.e. Paul-Marion: McCalib family did make, sign, and seal this “Certificate of Service” before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas.

[According to Black's Law Dictionary, “in” means "under or subject to."  “For” means “on behalf of” and at least implies a fiduciary relationship.

Thus, “in and for the State of Texas” could be construed to mean under the authority of, subject to and acting as a fiduciary for “the State of Texas”.  But I strongly suspect that “the State of Texas” signifies “this state” while “The State of Texas” and only “The State of Texas” signifies The State of the Union.

Paul, himself, makes clear the significance of the capitalized “The” when he referred repeatedly in his previous document to varioius Texas rules of procedure that mandate reference to “The State of Texas”.  I.e., those rules show that all lawful process must be in the name of “The States of Texas”—but Paul nevertheless designates his paper work in the name of “the State of Texas”.

If my suspicions are correct, you can understand why the judges—who presumably recognize the distinction between “the State of Texas” and “The State of Texas”—would laugh at paperwork like this.

Paul’s paperwork isn’t bad.  It shows that Paul has a lot of insight and is close to understanding fundamental principles on which our current system may rely.  But this is law, not horseshoes, and here, “close” doesn’t count.

If’ you’re going to play this game, you must not only dot your “i’s” and cross your “t’s,” you must sometimes capitalize mere definite articles with the same ferocity and determination as a 4^th grade grammar teacher.

The whole freakin’ system runs on WORDS.   The whole freakin’ illusion of "this state" has been conjured up with a very sophisticated use of WORDS.  If you can master the English language, you can master the law.

But if you are not adept in English, you're going to live as a subject for the rest of your life.

The right to keep and bear arms is important and even vital to our freedom.  But a mastery of words is even more important than a mastery of guns.

Don't forget that our Father YHWH spoke the entire universe into existence with is words.

Guns come and guns go.  Bullets fly and bullets fall. But the words go on forever.

Today, the weapons of the time of Moses are nothing but curios and artefacts, today.  But the words on the Ten Commandments still move the entire world.  The weapons used by Roman Legions in the time of the Christ are today's toys.  But the words of the Christ still move the world.

Don't underestimate the power of words, of language.  More than anything else, your mastery of words will determine your earthly status, prosperity and freedom.]

___________________________________

Seal Notary

About these ads