Blank

For future use.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Client Notice.

To all Clients: If you are missing any products in our ‘Shared Dropbox‘, or believe they may not be ‘updated, email me and we will refresh the account to assure you have the latest versions of your ordered products. To follow only “my” law postings send me an invite to “Paul Severe, Omaha, NE” by Facebook.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Contracts, General INFO

PDF > 01 contracts_bar

Posted in Contracts | Leave a comment

OMB control numbers, Defense, IRS

SEE > OMB control numbers

 

Posted in Defense, OMB numbers IRS | Leave a comment

Arrest, Imprisonment, False – False Arrest

A Treatise On Arrests And False Imprisonment [< PDF]                                        (searchable as > False Arrest)

6-7-2017 – I, Paul Hansen has not read this document in its entirety as of this date due to time restraints, so I cannot endorse it yet. Will likely read soon.

Email me if you see error in the document, or have good info to add to this site.

 

Posted in False Arrest | Leave a comment

Credit Card Defenses

Credit Card Defenses:
Before 1913, before the Federal Reserve Act was slipped in over Congresses Christmas Session Break, banks used honest money to lend out to Americans. Credit banks were close to non-existent due to the liability risk.
Bankers can not defraud Americans out of billions of dollars a year with honest money, that is why they will kill presidents to keep the Fed in place, if need be.
Now the banks create credit and deliver it to you in a electronic bank ledger accounting system, essentially bypassing the need for depositors money.
All is fine unless you are a depositor and want a little interest for all your hard work. They will give you a little, very little.
What does this have to do with me winning every credit card case I have ever went to court on is this:
a. all banks in the US are governed by Congress,
b. Congress has never given permission to banks to do this,
c. the bank or credit card company will never come to court where full (call accounts) disclosure may be required,
d. banks have never been given permission to exchange promises to pay for Federal Reserve Notes,
d. bank officials do not want to give false testimony (perjury),
e. bank officials must testify unless the case is acquiesced (plaintiff dismisses),
f. you must have the right law to stop the judge from blocking your defenses,
f. you win, they lose, you do not pay a dime.

Normally I charge 35$ per hour.
The client does most of the work with my case defense documents.
Every case is different, much like a chess game is.
Some cases only take one hour of my time, few take more than four hours.

If you want to lose go in arguing your case and you will lose most every time.
Ask the right person the right questions, at the right time, and let them know you are working with the right legal minds, and you will most likely win.

And even if you lose I know how to generally stop them from collecting based on a void judgment principle, by a subject matter jurisdiction challenge.

THEIR crime does not pay if YOU know how to play.

Pay for one hour counsel time to get things off to a good start. Start well will ensure you end well. Use top PayPal Button <Click Here.

 

 

Posted in Credit Card | Leave a comment

Sue for Money and Fun.

If you can convince the majority on a jury that it an’t right ya win.
>> 
1. I charged a Dentist…actually sent him a bill for my valuable time that was wasted in his waiting room.. It was over $400! He paid it too. He knew I would take him to small claims. -A Client that wishes to stay anonymous.
>>
2. This gives me an idea to sue the traffic court for summonsing me to be there at 9:00 and they do not call my case until 11:00.
>>

Posted in Court | Leave a comment

BLANK

For future use.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

BLANK

For future use.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Foreign Judgments, with due process.

((Comments by Paul Hansen))

Nebraska Revised Statute                                                                  pass – ‘dueprocess’

25-1587.03. Filing and status of foreign judgments.

A copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the act of Congress or the statutes of this state may be filed on or after January 1, 1994, in the office of the clerk of any court of this state having jurisdiction of such action. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.

this state” defined is a possession or territory of the United States.

>>

25-1587.02.   Foreign judgment, defined. For purposes of the Nebraska Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, foreign judgment means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.

Source: Laws 1993, LB 458, § 2. ; 

>>

28 USC § 2467 – Enforcement of foreign judgment

(a) Definitions.— In this section—

(1) the term “foreign nation” means a country that has become a party to the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (referred to in this section as the “United Nations Convention”) or a foreign jurisdiction with which the United States has a treaty or other formal international agreement in effect providing for mutual forfeiture assistance; and

((One can not successfully argue that the People of America do not have standing to have their judgments accepted as a ‘foreign jurisdiction’ in good standing with the United States, provide they possess ‘due process’. One must remember that if the subject property that is sought to be taken to satisfy the judgment is without the US, the US lacks territorial jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment, thus authority remains solely with the People of Americas and not with the UNITED STATES.))

(2) the term “forfeiture or confiscation judgment” means a final order of a foreign nation compelling a person or entity—

(A) to pay a sum of money representing the proceeds of an offense described in Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention, any violation of foreign law that would constitute a violation or an offense for which property could be forfeited under Federal law if the offense were committed in the United States, or any foreign offense described in section 1956 (c)(7)(B) of title 18, or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds; or

(B) to forfeit property involved in or traceable to the commission of such offense.

(b) Review by Attorney General.—

(1) In general.— A foreign nation seeking to have a forfeiture or confiscation judgment registered and enforced by a district court of the United States under this section shall first submit a request to the Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General, which request shall include—

(A) a summary of the facts of the case and a description of the proceedings that resulted in the forfeiture or confiscation judgment;

(B) certified [1] copy of the forfeiture or confiscation judgment;

(C) an affidavit or sworn declaration establishing that the foreign nation took steps, in accordance with the principles of due process, to give notice of the proceedings to all persons with an interest in the property in sufficient time to enable such persons to defend against the charges and that the judgment rendered is in force and is not subject to appeal; and

(D) such additional information and evidence as may be required by the Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General.

(2) Certification of request.— The Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General shall determine whether, in the interest of justice, to certify the request, and such decision shall be final and not subject to either judicial review or review under subchapter II of chapter 5, or chapter 7, of title 5 (commonly known as the “Administrative Procedure Act”).

(c) Jurisdiction and Venue.—

(1) In general.— If the Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General certifies a request under subsection (b), the United States may file an application on behalf of a foreign nation in district court of the United States seeking to enforce the foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgment as if the judgment had been entered by a court in the United States.

(2) Proceedings.— In a proceeding filed under paragraph (1)—

(A) the United States shall be the applicant and the defendant or another person or entity affected by the forfeiture or confiscation judgment shall be the respondent;

(B) venue shall lie in the district court for the District of Columbia or in any other district in which the defendant or the property that may be the basis for satisfaction of a judgment under this section may be found; and

(C) the district court shall have personal jurisdiction over a defendant residing outside of the United States if the defendant is served with process in accordance with rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(d) Entry and Enforcement of Judgment.—

(1) In general.— The district court shall enter such orders as may be necessary to enforce the judgment on behalf of the foreign nation unless the court finds that—

(A) the judgment was rendered under a system that provides tribunals or procedures incompatible with the requirements of due process of law;

(B) the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant;

(C) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(D) the foreign nation did not take steps, in accordance with the principles of due process, to give notice of the proceedings to a person with an interest in the property of the proceedings [2] in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend; or

(E) the judgment was obtained by fraud.

(2) Process.— Process to enforce a judgment under this section shall be in accordance with rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(3) Preservation of property.—

(A) Restraining orders.—

(i) In general.— To preserve the availability of property subject to civil or criminal forfeiture under foreign law, the Government may apply for, and the court may issue, a restraining order at any time before or after the initiation of forfeiture proceedings by a foreign nation.

(ii) Procedures.—

(I) In general.— A restraining order under this subparagraph shall be issued in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (A), (C), and (E) of paragraph (1) and the procedural due process protections for a restraining order under section 983 (j) of title 18.

(II) Application.— For purposes of applying such section 983(j)—

(aa) references in such section 983(j) to civil forfeiture or the filing of a complaint shall be deemed to refer to the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings; and

(bb) the reference in paragraph (1)(B)(i) of such section 983(j) to the United States shall be deemed to refer to the foreign nation.

(B) Evidence.— The court, in issuing a restraining order under subparagraph (A)—

(i) may rely on information set forth in an affidavit describing the nature of the proceeding or investigation underway in the foreign country, and setting forth a reasonable basis to believe that the property to be restrained will be named in a judgment of forfeiture at the conclusion of such proceeding; or

(ii) may register and enforce a restraining order that has been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in the foreign country and certified by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

(C) Limit on grounds for objection.— No person may object to a restraining order under subparagraph (A) on any ground that is the subject of parallel litigation involving the same property that is pending in a foreign court.

(e) Finality of Foreign Findings.— In entering orders to enforce the judgment, the court shall be bound by the findings of fact to the extent that they are stated in the foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgment.

(f) Currency Conversion.— The rate of exchange in effect at the time the suit to enforce is filed by the foreign nation shall be used in calculating the amount stated in any forfeiture or confiscation judgment requiring the payment of a sum of money submitted for registration.

>>

((So one asks how/where is there evidence that the United States has a treaty with the people of this community court, consisting of free inhabitants.))

Looking at Article IV (4) of the Articles of Confederation which is un-repealed law as evidenced in the current United States Code.

ARTICLE IV, of the Articles of Confederation 1777
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

>>

I believe the underlying principal is that free inhabitants do not reside on land that is of the United States (Land owned by the styled confederacy called “The United States of America”.) yet those same free inhabitants are recognized as having agreements, relationships, mutual friendship, intercourse, privileges, and immunities (treaties) with the system that the said free citizens have opted to be subject to. This is evidence that free inhabitants are, by residency, foreign to the jurisdiction that the free citizens voluntarily submit themselves to, by residency, therefore are of a different jurisdiction and therefore are foreign to that jurisdiction yet are allowed (treaty) to interact..

>>

Nebraska Revised Statute 25-1293

Revised Statutes » Chapter 25 » 25-1293

Print Friendly

25-1293. Public seal affixed to copy of written law or public writing; effect; unwritten law; how proved.

The public seal of the state or county affixed to a copy of a written law or other public writing, is also admissible as evidence of such law or writing respectively; the unwritten law of any other state or government may be proved as fact by parol evidence, and also by the books of reports of cases adjudged in their courts.

Source

R.S.1867, Code § 420, p. 463; 
R.S.1913, § 7986;
 
C.S.1922, § 8927;
 
C.S.1929, § 20-1293;
 
R.S.1943, § 25-1293.

Annotations

This section provides a method for proof of unwritten law of foreign states by parol evidence or reports of adjudicated cases. Banks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 142 Neb. 823, 8 N.W.2d 185 (1943).

Common law of sister state [[Caution, I assume sister states are US courts]] may be proved by books of reports of decisions of her courts. Steinke v. Dobson, 90 Neb. 616, 134 N.W. 169 (1912).

Except as to statute, law of another state is proper subject of expert testimony. Barber v. Hildebrand, 42 Neb. 400, 60 N.W. 594 (1894).

(unwritten law judgments recognized) 

[Note: the Bible exceeds the legal memory of man. Yes we can and must use the Bible as an/the authority. God, by His Word, is an expert witness]

>>

Posted in Foreign judgment | Leave a comment