|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
5257a
Lawyerdude's Freemen, Patriot, and Sight Draft Philosophy.
Getzschman case in Iowa.
Revised 21 march 2001. Equinox day. Revised 29 March, Good Friday. Added Laura Ferris link 11 July 2002. Remodeled Saturday, August 30, 2003
This page is www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5257a.html
Related pages:
Actual picture of Fred’s sight draft: 1.pdf
The federal complaint that I wrote for Fred: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5238.pdf
How the fed may be obligated to clear stuff for you like it does for foreign governments: 5261.html
Sight draft page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/sight.html
Yahoo group called "Fred G": http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/FredG
This page is mentioned on my main page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com
This page is listed on my oppression page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5724.html
Why patriots contest the existence of the county : www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5395.html
General navigational links:
Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334
Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude
Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com
Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
Some of the following exhibits were deleted due to space requirements:
Fred's federal 1st amended complaint #5238.pdf and exhibits 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9 , 10 11 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20, 21, 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27, 28 , 29 , 30, 31, 32 , 33 , 34-37 , 38 arrived at the Federal court by mail on Friday 29 March 2001. It arrived at Fred's cell in prison on the same day (presumably). Fred will sign it and improve it also.
Exhibits - 39 of them - In Chronological Order. These exhibits were affixed to Fred’s federal case which is here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5238.pdf
Exhibit #1 www.lawyerdude.8m.com/1.pdf Copy of Valid Money Order that Gateway failed to process. This is a common pattern of oppression in these cases. It is similar to speculating that the check would not have cleared without actually attempting to cash it. Either Gateway or the police blocked out the words at the bottom of the page that make it clear that the treasury account number is what is stated in the lower right corner. Then they lied and said that there was no account number or institution listed. Despite police or Gateway's attempt to cover the words, you can read ". . EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION ACCOUNT NUMBER . .377. . . .39" which is Fred's account number at the treasury.
Exhibit #2 The smoking gun. Filed Wed May 9, 2001. Fred is in prison for writing this paper - due to bad jury instructions - but that is merely a theory unless we have a transcript and record for appeal. He was not prosecuted for the money order; he was imprisoned for his efforts trying to get his property back. Fred testified that the woman lawyer for the police gave it to him to sign and promised that he would get his property back if he signed it. The lawyer did not deny it. Lorraine May did the hearing that day. We need the transcript! We asked for it in writing in a Motion #5236 set for 5 March. Palaschak telephoned the Wapello court clerk for imprisoned Fred on 25 March 2002. Laurie said that they need to ask the Supreme Court to approve a transcript. Then they said that they would "go upstairs and ask the judge" and call back. They did not call back.
Exhibit #3 Police Report falsely accusing Fred of Forgery. No forgery prosecution was ever brought by state authorities. This is part of a common pattern of police abuse. They base the overbroad warrant on a pretext. The FBI has institutionalized this practice and the Federal Judicial Council has approved it by use of the fictitious "Felony Flight" allegation (18 USC 1073). Although a federal warrant says that the defendant is to be taken to a magistrate immediately, FRCrP permits this exception of 1073 cases and routinely the original warrant is obtained without there being an actual 1073 case. Having expanded the list of "contraband" to include many common household items, the police can abuse their discretion to achieve their desired results: suppression of enemies of the state. Excess discretion leads to oppression. The police have their own agenda.
Exhibit #4 "Attachment A" Unsworn attachment upon which search warrant was based. Notice at line 23 that Hucks says that "no institution or bank was located by Gateway Inc. per the tracking numbers at the bottom of the money order." Obviously this is hearsay and he has not even seen the money order. Observe on
Exhibit #1 that somebody has blacked on the spot where the tracking number might appear, but we can read through the mark and read ". . EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION ACCOUNT NUMBER . . .377. . . .39" which is Fred's account number at the treasury. There is indeed an institution listed: the treasury. This "affidavit" is a lie! No wonder it is not signed.
Exhibit #5 The raid was on June 27th but the return was not filed until after the 4th of July holiday.
Exhibit #6 More hearsay. The police proceeded on the theory that the money order was forged although they knew that it had never been dishonored. It was obviously not a forgery because Fred signed it and they believed it was from Fred.
Exhibit #7 Judge issues the warrant on June 23 and police sit on it for 4 days.
Exhibit #8 Search Warrant. No public offense was alleged. No case was filed. The test it this: Is it more likely than not that contraband or evidence will be found? If there is no underlying crime (and there is none here) then the probable cause is zero. If there had been a target crime, it would have been specified.
Exhibit #9 The Application for Search Warrant is predicated on the pretext of an underlying crime.
Exhibit #10 Page one of defective inventory. Notice that the column for the true owner is ignored. We 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 contend that a raid of a computer to obtain mere evidence is a violation of the right against selfincrimination because the computer is an extension of the brain.
Exhibit #11 Page 2 of the defective inventory. "Ford Receipts" are not related to any alleged crime.
Exhibit #12 Fred's claim filed in civil court demanding return of his computer.
Exhibit #13 Notarization of Fred's claim. Note that no percipient witness signed against Fred. The search warrant was based on innuendo and police had already concluded that it as not a forgery - and if they had not then are ignorant of the law. "45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well." - Magna Charta - valid in Iowa.
Exhibit #14 Page 24 of transcript of hearing of August 10, 2000. At line 9, Attorney Kelly for the police indicates that the computers were taken because they were "forfeitable" in other words, booty taken without due process in violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution, the Magna Charta, the UCC, and Law Mercantile.
Exhibit #15 Page 43 of the transcript of 10 August, 2000. At line 15 Officer Hucks answers his lawyer Kelly saying that "at least state charges" would be brought. State charges were not brought ever. If there was probable cause for the search, then there was probable cause for prosecution unless: #1 the evidence seized was exculpating; #2 there was insufficient probable cause in the first place; or #3 other facts caused the failure to prosecute. We contend that it was #2 - insufficient probable cause. The money order is self-exculpatory. Res Ipsa Loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.
Exhibit #16. Page 57 of the transcript of 10 August 2000. Witness Rick Getzschman, the son, at line 19 to the end testifies as to the funds deposited on to the book entries (which is the only type of accounts at treasury direct) for Fred's account at the treasury. The funds were liens transferred from Michigan for eventual liquidation - which is what the treasury does under authority of 31 USC 3124 and other statutes and regulations.
Exhibit #17 Copy of Judge Meadows's order. He finds that the property belongs to Fred and Rick but defers to police; Meadows should ruled for Fred or at least he should have set the matter for further review in 2 weeks . As of 10 August 2000 the police then had approximately 45 days to begin prosecution but they had not prosecuted.
Exhibit #18 Page 1 of Barbara Hering's deceptive April 10th, 2001 Motion for Summary Judgment. Notice that we now have a different case number. This should have remained case SPLA but now it is EQEQ. The bizarre case numbering belies the bizarreness of this bizarre court in a dysfunctional and crooked judicial system.
Exhibit #19 Page 2 of Barbara Hering's Motion. She lies. There is indeed much dispute. Example: Was the money order forgery? Answer: No. Was the account number valid? Answer: Yes. Were there sufficient funds on the account? Answer: Yes. The words at the bottom indicate that Hering needs some remedial English. Also, all caps is not necessary. It is a vestige of the days of antique typewriters.
Exhibit #20 Page 3 of Barbara Hering's motion. Barbara deceives. In her quote from the Judge Meadows she neglects to include the statement that Judge Meadows made in favor of Fred and Rick. Judge Meadows said: "the Court finds that the Applicants [Fred and Rick Getzschman] have demonstrated that they have a right to possess the items numbers 1 through 19 listed on the. . . inventory"
Exhibit #21 Page 1 of Fred's Order of 5 April 2000. Fred asserts competing jurisdiction. The criminal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 court may have construed this as Fred's having impersonated a judge. Who knows? We don't have a record.
Exhibit #22 Page 2 of Fred's Order, top half. He is the "super-plaintiff". It was printed on 14 inch paper.
Exhibit #23 Remainder of page 2 of Fred's 5 April 2000 Order. It was printed on 14 inch paper.
Exhibit #24 Page 3 of Fred's 5 April 2000 Order.
Exhibit #25 Proof of Service of Fred's 5 April 2000 Order. Why was this not served sooner than April 11? Significance: In later
Exhibits we see that Judge Meadows denies any controverted issues, but if you compare Hering's "facts" (in an earlier
Exhibit) with Fred's facts, you will see that there were controverted issues. Meadows was wrong in his ruling.
Exhibit #26
Exhibit #2: The smoking gun. Filed Wed May 9, 2001. Fred is in prison for writing this paper - due to bad jury instructions - but that is merely a theory unless we have a transcript and record for appeal. He was not prosecuted for the money order; he was imprisoned for his efforts trying to get his property back. Fred testified that the woman lawyer for the police gave it to him to sign and promised that he would get his property back if he signed it. The lawyer did not deny it. Lorraine May did the hearing that day. We need the transcript! We asked for it in writing in a Motion #5236 set for 5 March. Palaschak telephoned the Wapello court clerk for imprisoned Fred on 25 March 2002. Laurie said that they need to ask the Supreme Court to approve a transcript. Then they said that they would "go upstairs and ask the judge" and call back. They did not call back.
Exhibit #27. Page 1 of Meadows's Ruling against Fred. Although the signature says [Tuesday] May 8, it was not filed until after Fred filed the smoking gun.
Exhibit #28 Page 2 of Meadows's Ludicrous ruling. Meadows repeats the quadruple hearsay which is exculpatory by its omission of any mention of an attempt to cash the money order at the institution listed on the money order.
Exhibit #29 Page 3 of Meadows's ludicrous ruling.
Exhibit #30 Page 4 of Meadow's ruling - mostly copied from Hering's ludicrous pleading. Meadows makes no mention of Fred's Order served on Meadows on April 11.
Exhibit #31 Page 5. Final page of the incorrect ruling of Judge Meadows.
Exhibit #32 Page 1 of Fred's Judgment in criminal case. November 13, 2001.
Exhibit #33 Page 2 of Fred's judgment. Bail is set at $7,500. We want Fred released on bail! Why are there drug conditions? This is not a drug case nor was there evidence of drugs. Conclusion: This is evidence of the negligence of the court and appointed counsel, Allen Anderson in not noticing this and protesting.
Exhibit #34 Copy of page 1 of a Certified copy of our Motion #5236. It was ignored. On March 5, they closed the courtrooms.
Exhibit #35 Page 2 of Motion #5236.
Exhibit #36Page 3 of Motion #5236.
Exhibit #37 Page 4 of Fred's Motion #5236.
Exhibit #38 Power of Attorney from Fred to Douglas Palaschak.
Here is page #5261 which explains that the treasury acts as a clearinghouse in its liquidation function prescribed in 31 USC 3124 and elsewhere.
Although the prosecutor asked at trial "do you pay your bills with your social security account?" Fred was not on trial for than, but rather for asserting initiative and declaring his own "judgment" which has actually been rendered many months prior by a duly convened common law court. Below are the crimes that Fred was accused of committing:
718.5 Falsifying public documents.
A person who, having no right or authority to do so, makes or alters any public document, or any instrument which purports to be a public document, or who possesses a seal or any counterfeit seal of the state or of any of its subdivisions, or of any officer, employee, or agency of the state or of any of its subdivisions, commits a class "D" felony.
Section History: Early form
[C51, § 2628, 2642, 2677; R60, § 4255, 4269, 4304; C73, § 3919, 3933, 3968; C97, § 1136, 4855, 4869, 4907; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, § 13141, 13156, 13283, 13314; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, § 718.3, 718.8, 738.21, 740.12; C79, 81, § 718.5]
Our position is that a Fred had authority to sign his own name. He previously obtained a judgment in his own tribunal after extensive due process. Having given the court a change to act, he utilized his own authority. This is the more serious of the two offenses and is often the vehicle for prosecution against patriot filings.
Rick tells me that he saw two lawyers file stamping their own documents. I have noticed in San Jose and in Crescent City, California, that court file stamps are left unattended in plain view. In Crescent City somebody inserted a back dated document into our court file.
718.2 Impersonating a public official.
Any person who falsely claims to be or assumes to act as an elected or appointed officer, magistrate, peace officer, or person authorized to act on behalf of the state or any subdivision thereof, having no authority to do so, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
Section History: Early form
[C51, § 2671, 2672; R60, § 4298, 4299; C73, § 3962, 3963; C97, § 4901, 4902; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, § 13306, 13307;C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, § 740.4, 740.5; C79, 81, § 718.2]
Update March 7, 2002:
On about February 11, Fred's son was released from jail after about 40 days on a bogus arrest for carrying an uncased shotgun. The arrest was triggered by an hysterical and false police report by prison guard Bushman that he was in a confrontation with an armed man. There was no confrontation. Fred's son has attempted to deliver a $50 money order to be put on the account of his Dad, Fred. Will Bushman be charged with filing a false police report?
718.6 False reports to or communications with public safety entities.
1. A person who reports or causes to be reported false information to a fire department, a law enforcement authority, or other public safety entity, knowing that the information is false, or who reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act knowing the act did not occur, commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the alleged criminal act reported is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious misdemeanor. [Bushman reported a confrontation with an armed man - and Rick was arrested for a crime carrying a 15 year sentence. Therefore Bushman should be arrested for the serious misreporting.]
2. A person who telephones an emergency 911 communications center knowing that the person is not reporting an emergency or otherwise needing emergency information or assistance commits a simple misdemeanor.
3. A person who knowingly provides false information to a law enforcement officer who enters the
information on a citation commits a simple misdemeanor, unless the criminal act for which the citation is
issued is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, in which case the person commits a serious
misdemeanor.
We have begun the process of beginning Fred's appeal. We face the obstacle of the statute of
limitations. Fred's lawyer should have dealt with the notice of appeal but declined to do so.
Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Pacific time 6 March 2002:
Well, yesterday was the big day for Fred's hearing in Wapello county! I previously filed motion #5236 for Fred. He signed it and ratified it. The court received it and sent a conforming file-stamped copy to me. Fred's son went to court and. . . . Surprise! The court rooms were all closed. Although Tuesday is Wapello county's biggest court day - this Tuesday there was no court. Fred called me from prison. It was my first chat with Fred. Rick called me to tell me the story. I asked him to check back with the clerk and see if they had rescheduled the event.. . . but, alas, the court clerk's office closes at 2 pm every working day in Wapello county.
Update: They merely needed some guidance. When I called them on the phone on Monday 25 March, they marched the motion up to a judge and he ordered a transcript for us!
Fred junior and senior wanted to fire their federal public defenders. I wrote the motion and filed it. Come the day for the hearing and they both wimped out and kept their public defender and originally lost their cases at trial.
Fred got out of state prison and resorted to being a smug asshole. They never said anything to me again.
Then he and his son got sentenced in federal court. I don’t know if they got probation or what. They aint saying much.
