If Polk County Circuit Court, Dallas Oregon, 97338 Hold me in contempt...
bench-the-judge
To: Judget...@hotmail.com
Subject: Fw: Maybe some of these current objections can apply to
yester year...
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:16:15 -0700
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Maybe some of these current objections can apply to
yester year...
An administrative 'judge' may be required to obtain
written consent from you prior to hearing the case per
28 USC 636 (c) (1). I would deny consent as soon as
you step before the judge or ask the clerk for a
consent form and deny. This will put a dent in
"dispositive" or injunctions.
A magistrate is a judicial officer. In common law
systems a magistrate usually has limited authority to
administer and enforce the law. In civil law systems a
magistrate may be a judge of a superior court. In some
jurisdictions, such as Australia, the term has become
both Federal Magistrates and state magistrates have
jurisdiction similar to a judge. A magistrate's court
may have jurisdiction in civil cases, criminal cases,
or both. A related, but not always equivalent, term is
Chief Magistrate, which (historically) can refer to
political and administrative as well as judicial
officers.
This is a very good case to read on recusal and has 28
USC well explained.
--- Marilyn leBaron <>
wrote:
>
> Dear IPD,
> Dear Everybody,
>
> This is Regarding: 'The LeBaron Plea', and the
> assignment to Officer Barlow: Video e-mail on the
> way to go with the photos...
> On Behalf of Victoria Couvillion, in Propria
> Persona.
> Portland Oregon, [97233]
>
> Jennifer Heldt
> Social Service Specialist
> Rockwood CW
> CPS Unit
>
> Munltinomah County, District 2
> 3552 SE 122nd Ave.
> Portland Oregon, 97236
>
> I, ______________________________________, do
> herby respectfully ask Jennifer Heldt to recuse as
> CPS Advocate for the case she assigned to herself
> seeking my offspring, Victoria Couvillion, as a
> Client, pursuant to the Substantive Due Process
> rights. Assigning the case is 'judicial in its
> nature' and my daughter and I have a right to and
> independent judiciary, as it is written in the
> Declaration of Independence. Remaining as Advocate
> is in violation of Victoria's Counsel of Choice,
> which I assert for her now by asking that Jennifer
> Heldt recuse as a CPS Agent, as Marilyn LeBaron,
> Victoria's grandmother, has objected prior. I also
> respectfully request to strike her notes and to
> quash the current report form my case file.
> Since the American Inalienable rights include an
> independent judiciary, which means CPS Agents do not
> get to assess upon performing judicial duties just
> prior to the assessment for the same case, pursuant
> to Judge Horner saying "The Courts are not an
> investigative body", O5P2064 & O5P2176, Polk County
> Circuit Court, Child Custody Case Singleton VS.
> LeBaron. I will expect Jennifer Held, while acting
> in the capacity as CPS Agent and judge, not to knock
> on my door, at 15964 E Burnside, Portland Oregon,
> [97233], again. I, nor my daughter, intend to have
> Jennifer Heldt Attest in open court or DHS staff
> meetings or otherwise submit judicial reports for
> either me or my daughter based on BEST INTERESTS,
> since REASONABLE EFFORTS should not subvert our
> American Declaration of Independence, or circumvent
> both the Oregon and the US Constitution, for any
> purpose, especially for that of a Municipal Contract
> sought under mass duress upon the American
> population, who are too legally illiterate to
> notice, not having any legal training in Contractual
> Law. and since the 'Municipal System' is noncriminal
> prosecution, which being Administrative, subject to
> contractual agreements and contractual law, causing
> the phrase 'Ignorance is no excuse', which pertains
> to Criminal Justice System, crime and punishment, to
> become the phrase, all disintegrate to 'Legal
> Illiteracy Is The Excuse For Such a Power Position',
> and collusion due to the American population being
> in ignorance of their Legal and Natural Rights and
> the US Government is at fault for not Fully Advising
> the 'sheep' like people they dominate, when they
> then say, "You get no lawyer, or Privileged
> relationships", and call it BEST INTERESTS when the
> CPS come to take our kids, who are worth more that
> $20.00 dollars, in any century.
> Since 'We the People', have the right to equal
> protection of the laws, I insist that an assessment
> is the equivalent to and investigation due to the
> nature of CPS 'representation' being prosecutory, at
> noncriminal Administrative capacity, whereas the
> Oregon State Bar has denied that Max R. Wall is
> subject to the PRC when he Attested the DHS Fully
> Advised Melanie LeBaron, when DHS/CPS Agents are not
> members of the Oregon State Bar or Medical Doctors
> to gave Medical Advise while failing give the proper
> Legal Advise regarding her right to a Speedy Trial,
> when not qualified but purported Melanie to have
> been Fully Advised on the Premise to Max R. Wall,
> who was not Melanie's Defender in the case were
> there was a conflict of interest between Melanie and
> Chandra Snyder. And by such, CPS Agents, like as in
> this case, Chandra Snyder, DHS Supervisory Staff,
> did so perform judicial duties, and also act in the
> capacity of prosecutor by signing the Petition she
> presented to Polk County Circuit Court. When later,
> in half of Max R. Wall's duties, did overturn the
> assigned caseworkers intention to allow visitation
> and prevented visitation on behalf of her own
> malicious complaint, that there was a physical
> confrontation initiated against her in court by
> Marilyn LeBaron, when in fact it was initiated by
> herself when she seized the signature pages of the
> AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISSMIS, which is
> perjury. After, Max R. Wall had gained a unfair
> advantage, prior, seeking a second set of double
> continuances with DHS diagnosis sought through
> improper channels over the same caseworker Chandra
> Snyder had personally assigned to the case, which
> impeaches her.
> Please ask the question, if you ever examine,
> the preponderance of evidence, "Is there such a
> thing as extra judicial testimony, like unto the
> equivalent of extra judicial evidence?"; which goes
> to Judge Avera and the possibility that he has
> credentials in psychology, only after you weigh the
> fact that, if Melanie would have been properly
> appointed Counsel of Choice, as she did request it
> from her caseworker many times, and Chandra Snyder
> would not have sized her right to the security of
> her papers including the fact that Marilyn LeBaron's
> pen was impeached of Power, Judge Avera would have
> been forced to allow a continuance so Melanie could
> get the lawyer or Attorney she requested early in
> her detainment while in Coos Bay instead of CASA.
> Said continuance, and having being Fully Advised by
> an Attorney, Melanie LeBaron could have exercise her
> right to a Speedy Trial and could have got the
> AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS empowered,
> as Marilyn LeBaron did the criminal charges against
> herself resultant of act of resisting Chandra
> Snyder's prejudice power position over a judge that
> finally did recuse, when a licensed attorney finally
> demanded it of him. But, no attorney was appointed
> to Melanie which is unconscionable and illegal,
> whereas a conflict of interest between her and
> Chandra Snyder existed at the earliest stage of her
> case, being that said case was closed at screening
> on November 14th, 2005 and then having the same,
> Chandra Snyder, who impeachable, did act as judge
> and co-prosecutor by both assigning the case and
> then presenting it after she herself got a different
> screener to assign the case, circumventing the
> probable cause stage of this case, when intending to
> get in the middle of all that was already being done
> imposing CPS Activity, in lieu of herself, with her
> supervisory capacity, to all the privileged
> relationships in existence, and later also stepping
> in as caseworker, too, while adlibbing about the
> passions of ' a Client' of the other caseworker, who
> was denied the power to allow reconciliation,
> because of what she said was done to her in Court.
> What a team Judge Avera and Chandra Snyder make he
> read the seized AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
> DISMISS, a day after the or the day of the trial as
> it is a Point in Fact he declared DHS had
> Jurisdiction over the matter the day after the Trial
> date, and then did proceed to SUMMON Melanie's mom
> to PERSONNALLY APPEAR, and declared, "I find DHS has
> jurisdiction" twice into court record at a
> dependency / pseudo sentencing herring, and
> impeaching the assigned caseworker allowing the
> supervisory veto to go forward as a "No Contact
> Order". So in the end, Nicole K. Hall was never
> really Melanie's true Advocate, just limited to do
> Chandra Snyder's will. Said declaration of
> jurisdiction is a demonstration of bias considering
> the Chandra Snyder sized Melanie's right to the
> security of her papers preventing her to sign the
> AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS, where in
> said motion Melanie mother attested Melanie had
> demanded a lawyer. That attestation would have
> proved there was a conflict on interest between her
> and the woman that seized the document Marilyn
> LeBaron filed upon each involved party as required
> she do. Moreover, due to the fact that Max R. Wall
> 'represented' Melanie's mother as well as Melanie,
> both by second hand, had split his duties as Counsel
> or Advisor to Melanie with the DHS, making the State
> of Oregon's interests his Client in Fact, leaving
> his primary objective within such a duo second
> handed 'Client relationship' without the equal
> protection of the PRC in all three directions, when
> including the interests of the 'State of Oregon',
> Max R. Wall, not being subject thereto according to
> the Oregon State Bar. Further out, next to the fact
> that there is no right to have your whole case tried
> before a jury of our peers the US and Oregon State
> Constitution is circumvented on the mass, an
> investigation called an assessment having all the
> definitions changed into noncrime, which circumvents
> all the American Due Process rights, considering the
> value 'We the People' place on our children,
> Administrative Judges do not value us as parents
> very much congruent to the Supreme Court Rule which
> has shown they don't care that we have a bloodline
> or the right to have our prodigy protected and put
> in line for an inheritance, when paternal parents
> are deemed unfit, giving foster parents the
> advantage or at least equal footing as contenders
> for custody when consideration as adoptive placement
> next to grandparents is given. If it 'Takes a whole
> village to raise a child' now any body in the
> village is a candidate to be your parent' especially
> if a foster parent is the only option the CPS
> Caseworker
=== message truncated ===
William Dixon
To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:29:19 -0700
> From: Subject: Re: Lack of Juresdiction over the subject
> matter by way of conflict of interst in retainer practices while
> controdicting yourself.
> To: judget...@hotmail.com
>
> You are way ahead of me in your courtroom business so
> I will stick to what I know, which is not much.
>
> A phone conversation is parol evidence. Noone must
> testify regardless of the information given in prior
> conversation.
>
> Use the CPS Handbook and pick out the cites that
> pertain to this case and make your Affidavit. If you
> want to, write your testimony or rebut the demand from
> agency on a separate paper and have it notarized.
> Personally, I would hand it to the person who demanded
> it and not testify. Once you swear in, it will be open
> season on you.
>
> Sorry but this is the best I can do.
>
> --- RE-Polk Judge <judget...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear William,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am going to use the CPS HANDBOOK but I don't know
> > how to leverage a REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR
> > for a Subpoena directly ordering my daughter to be a
> > victim even if she did not want to and was sucked
> > into talking about it. If we get out of this then
> > maybe she will learn to not talk to a bureaucrat.
> >
> >
> >
> > They lead her into conversations fully intending to
> > retain the child while they pretend to come to her
> > aid on charges she already refused to press.
> >
> >
> >
> > REGARDING: DA and 6 failure to state a claim:
> > Usually a cause of action will be either a legal
> > claim or a claim in equity. Legal claims are usually
> > those that are based on the laws of a particular
> > jurisdiction. Equity claims are those based on the
> > common law interpretation of what is right and wrong
> > and what would be needed to make everyone whole
> > again.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know which one to use first.
> >
> >
> >
> > FRCP 12(b), supp. 33-34; FRCP 12(g)-(h), (a) move
> > for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the
> > person, then seek dismissal for lack of
> > jurisdiction over the subject matter
> >
> >
> >
> > Melanie never said that Victoria was a victim. She
> > was not. That should be evident in the police
> > report. The Advocate ordered Melanie to go get a
> > restraining order and that did not include the
> > advise to put the baby on that order yet she
> > threatens to put Victoria Couvillion in jeopardy of
> > Child Protective Services, if Melanie is not
> > compliant, as a leveraging tactic in retainer
> > insurance practices. This tactic is leveraged in
> > threatening to have the baby placed in jeopardy of
> > removal while at the same time promises to help her
> > attain custody. This show the DA's office is over
> > wrought with a present disposition at the bench
> > since they say they can have their cake and eat it,
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > This retainer insurance is also introduced with a
> > threat that Victoria is the intended Client, instead
> > of Melanie, being the charges pending do not name
> > the baby as a victim this shows the DA's Office have
> > preemptively retained Victoria Couvillion as their
> > target for protection so naming Melanie the
> > perpetrator without just cause to do so, which in
> > turn produced a conflict of interest between Melanie
> > and her daughter revealing a present disposition at
> > the DA's office and disqualifies them from
> > representing Melanie at this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > The DA can not retain a complainant and also name
> > them a future defendant all in the same phone call
> > while also having no jurisdiction over the subject
> > matter since the Child Abuse Hotline has no case
> > assigned. So, this preemptive plea bargain is very
> > controversial and produces a conflict of laws
> > wherein the Separation of Powers lay. This
> > circumvents my daughter and grandbabies right to Due
> > Process as the DA has no jurisdiction over
> > circumstances when they are no damages yet. "No
> > Complaint, No Victim" applies with respect to
> > Victoria Couvillion. No jurisdiction over the
> > primary victim when they is a conflict of interest
> > as she has a right to remain silent if under
> > investigation whereas the judicial seat would become
> > a party to an investigation and disqualifies them to
> > hear the matter until charges are brought against
> > Beau Couvillion where is daughter is the
> > complainant.
> >
> > Regarding the phone conversation from the people I
> > have been telling Melanie to stay away from because
> > she would not hang up the phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did I miss anything? in the strategy. All I have to
> > go by is what my daughter said to me after the phone
> > call and what I heard while she was talking to them.
> > It is pretty much going to boil down to a 'Good
> > Faith' call here if there is a preset disposition at
> > the bench.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter by way
> > of conflict of interest in retainer practices while
> > contradicting yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> > UCC 1-308
> >
> > Marilyn LeBaron
> >
>
>
> William Dixon
> http://godissovereignfast.com/
> To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to
> >
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:08:56 -0700
> From: Subject: Re: Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter by way of conflict of interest in retainer practices while contradicting yourself
> To: judget...@hotmail.com
>
> It is a start, but you are only making a statement and
> not testimony because there is no notary. The cites
> will not make a difference and are excessive.
>
> "I am under duress and Without Prejudice to me and my
> family, I wish to remain silent." She is fairly safe
> after that because nothing she says can be used
> against her. If they force her to sign anything,
> reserve rights. These people are vicious and after
> subsidy money and if they get you to speak in anger,
> they will succeed.
>
> Study Affidavits because they will assist you in your
> efforts. The adversary should know soon that you will
> resort to using their own rules against them. The
> federal magistrate system in Vermont folded its tent
> and went home after a two page affidavit was sent to
> them with notary witness.
>
> Very powerful. William
>
>
> --- RE-Polk Judge <judget...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear William,
> >
> > My daughter is going to say, "I am here under duress
> > and duress only" and that is all
> > even if the judge holds her in contempt.
> >
> > We mailed the DA this and also filed a copy of it on
> > the DMV.
> >
> > We did not have time to get it notarized but it did
> > get mailed CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT.
> >
> > Header of the document.
> >
> > REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR in support of
> > Melanie's Addendum at the DMV to rescind
> > Administrative authority.
> >
> > Footnote of the document.
> >
> > Now comes Melanie Victoria LeBaron and her daughter,
> > Victoria Couvillion, in Propria Persona by Special
> > Visitation, to challenge jurisdiction. Melanie
> > LeBaron oregon [97233]
> > (503) 262-6723 Page 1 of 53.
> >
> > Which includes NOTICE OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Addendum at the DMV to rescind
> > To: MICHAEL D. SCHRUNK & DOT / DMV
> > Re: Administrative authority.
> >
> > From: Melanie V. LeBaron & Victoria R.D. Couvillion
> > Date: 09-07-207
> >
> >
> >
> > CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
> >
> > 7007 1490 0001 7393 8733 DA / SCHRUNK 7007
> > 1490 0001 7393 8740 DMV
> >
> >
> >
> > YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ALL THIS.
> >
> >
> > IT IS MOSTLY THE STUFF YOU SENT ME.
> >
> > This is the only different part and what is at the
> > very end. [But, you already have a copy of the
> > articles.]
> > The red is to correct what Melanie said after I sent
> > the other e-mail out.
> >
> > This is the wrong venue for noncriminal prosecution.
> > Melanie never said that Victoria was a victim. She
> > was not. That should be evident in the police
> > report. The Advocate ordered Melanie to go get a
> > restraining order and did, without cause, include
> > the advise to put the baby on that order. Yet she
> > threatens to put Victoria Couvillion in jeopardy of
> > Child Protective Services, if Melanie is not
> > compliant, as a leveraging tactic in retainer
> > insurance practices. This tactic is leveraged in
> > threatening to have the baby placed in jeopardy of
> > removal while at the same time promises to help her
> > attain custody. This show the DA's offices is over
> > wrought with a present disposition at the bench
> > since they say they can have their cake and eat it,
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > There can be no jurisdiction over the primary victim
> > when they is a conflict of interest at the DA's
> > office. This retainer insurance is also introduced
> > with a threat that Victoria is the intended Client,
> > instead of Melanie, being the charges pending do not
> > name the baby as a victim this shows the DA's Office
> > have preemptively retained Victoria Couvillion as
> > their target for protection so naming Melanie the
> > perpetrator without just cause to do so, which in
> > turn produced a conflict of interest between Melanie
> > and her daughter revealing a present disposition at
> > the DA's office and disqualifies them from
> > representing Melanie at this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > The DA failed to name Victoria Couvillion on the
> > Subpoena. There can be no jurisdiction over the
> > primary victim when they is a conflict of interest
> > at the DA's office. Because Melanie can not be
> > forced to talk to the opposing party, and no judge
> > has the authority to force her to become the Client
> > of the DA's Office, as she has a right to remain
> > silent if under investigation. Furthermore, whereas
> > the judicial seat would become a party to an
> > investigation and disqualifies them to hear the
> > matter until charges are brought against Beau
> > Couvillion where is daughter is the complainant.
> >
> >
> >
> > "No Complaint, No Victim" applies with respect to
> > Victoria Couvillion.
> >
> > The DA cannot retain a complainant and also name
> > them a future defendant all in the same phone call
> > while also having no jurisdiction over the subject
> > matter since the Child Abuse Hotline has no case
> > assigned. So, this preemptive double sided bargain,
> > threatening to herd Melanie where she will never be
> > arraigned, is very controversial and produces a
> > conflict of laws when the Separation of Powers lay.
> > This circumvents my daughter and grandbabies right
> > to Due Process, as the DA has no jurisdiction over
> > circumstances when there are no damages yet.
> >
> >
> > REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR in support of
> > Melanie's
> >
> > Addendum at the DMV to rescind Administrative
> > authority.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now comes Melanie Victoria LeBaron and her daughter,
> > Victoria Couvillion,
> >
> > in Propria Persona by Special Visitation, to
> > challenge jurisdiction.
> >
> >
> >
> > Belligerent Claimant in Propria Persona by Special
> > Visitation
> >
> >
> >
> > In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S.
> > 142, 148-149, 28 S.Ct. 34, 35, 52 L.Ed.143, 146
> > (1907), the Court stated:
> >
> >
> > The right to sue and defend in the courts is the
> > alternative of force. In an organized society it is
> > the right conservative of all other rights, and lies
> > at the foundation of orderly government. It is one
> > of the highest and most essential privileges of
> > citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to
> > the citizens of all other states to the precise
> > extent that it is allowed to its own citizens.
> > Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to
> > depend upon comity between the states, but is
> > granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.
> > (Citations omitted.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The state policy decides whether and to what extent
> > the state will entertain in its courts transitory
> > actions, where the causes of action have arisen in
> > other jurisdictions. . . . But any policy the state
> > may choose to adopt must operate in the same way on
> > its own citizens and those of other states. The
> > privileges which it affords to one class it must
> > afford to the other. Any law by which privileges to
> > begin actions in the courts are given to its own
> > citizens and withheld from the citizens of other
> > states is void, because in conflict with the supreme
> > law of the land.
> >
> >
> >
> > The plaintiff brings the case here on writ of error,
> > alleging that the statute thus construed and the
> > judg- [<>207 U.S. 142, 148] ment based upon that
> > construction violate article 4, 2, paragraph 1, of
> > the Constitution of the United States, which
> > provides that 'the citizens of each state shall be
> > entitled to all privileges and immunities of
> > citizens in the several states.' This allegation
> > presents the only question for our consideration.
> >
> >
> >
> > A state Citizen may use the law and facts of a
> > controversy in federal court to the best of his
> > ability without a title of pro se, pro per, lawyer,
> > sui juris or defending himself. You do not admit to
> > being capable of follow the rules or being
> > "knowledgeable in the law." This type of defense is
> > In Propria Persona or in your own person. Any other
> > representation as stated above is tacit admission
> > that
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> William Dixon
> http://godissovereignfast.com/
> To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to
> http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/20674
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:37:01 -0700
> From: Subject: Re: Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter by way of conflict of interest in retainer practices while contradicting yourself
> To: judget...@hotmail.com
>
> OK. For now keep it short and sweet and try to rebut
> any presumption of fact that the agency has proposed
> and read the CPS Handbook to find an Affidavit cite.
> Use the cites that pertain to your issue and include
> them, leave out the vast majority of the other cites
> and keep the personal letter as testimony. ---
> RE-Polk Judge <judget...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear William,
> >
> > This was filed on the DMV.
> >
> > We have time to get it notarized now that they
> > postponed the 'Trial'.
> >
> > We have 10 more copies of it to send to other places
> > [FYI] if that is all it is worth.
> >
> > I will prepare a new one now.
> >
> > Thanks for the comment.
> >
> > UCC 1-308,
> >
> > Marilyn LeBaron
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: william dixon<>
> > To: RE-Polk
> > Judge<mailto:judget...@hotmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject
> > matter by way of conflict of interest in retainer
> > practices while contradicting yourself
> >
> >
> > It is a start, but you are only making a statement
> > and not testimony because there is no notary. The
> > cites will not make a difference and are excessive.
> >
> > "I am under duress and Without Prejudice to me and
> > my family, I wish to remain silent." She is fairly
> > safe after that because nothing she says can be used
> > against her. If they force her to sign anything,
> > reserve rights. These people are vicious and after
> > subsidy money and if they get you to speak in
> > anger, they will succeed.
> >
> > Study Affidavits because they will assist you in
> > your efforts. The adversary should know soon that you
> > will resort to using their own rules against them. The
> > federal magistrate system in Vermont folded its
> > tent and went home after a two page affidavit was sent
> > to them with notary witness.
> >
> > Very powerful. William
