This Man’s Story >Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â http://dicksimkanin.com/
â€œGET OUT of PRISONâ€ FREE instructionsâ€¦95% effective in Grand Jury cases.
Track record so far, 19 out of 20 released!
FINALLY! The odds are on your side!
Mathew 10:16 – Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves
1. File in the Court a DEMAND for All Information given to Grand Jury regarding YOU.
You have an absolute right to see what’s in that file, whether it’s “sealed” or not, and at no cost to you. It is only “sealed” against everyone else’s request, not YOURS!
Richard, when I talked to you on the phone, it seems you were not going to just DEMAND to see your file. THATâ€™S ALL YOU HAD TO DO! You are assuming they will deny you this right and you are trying to strategize how to accomplish this. All you have to do is demand to see them, P.E.R.I.O.D.
LISTEN, if they deny you, it would be in writing, because Iâ€™m sure they will not come to you face to face to tell you â€œNOâ€.Â Â But if they put the denial in writing, and you got that paper in your hand, THAT alone would be enough to have your case over turned!
You want to see the file on your case so you can win, but if you get a denial to see your file, you would win with that too!
And any Exculpatory evidence that the prosecutor had or knew of MUST be given to you. They cannot hide information that they know shows your innocence.Â They KNEW for example that the irs does not have jurisdiction within the 50 states united, which is where you were engaged in a PRIVATE contract with your private employees.Â If prosecutors knew, (which they most likely did know), that the Grand Jury did NOT issue an Indictment of you, then the prosecutors were operating in FRAUD by pretending that the Grand Jury DID issue an Indictment.Â Â FRAUD is NOT Due Process of Law and therefore they lost any jurisdiction that might have otherwise had.Â No Jurisdiction, No Case, No Valid Judgment!
2. If there is nothing there in that file, then you have to file a Demand for Concurrence,
which means you demands that all the jury members involved concur (AGREE), that they received the information from the prosecutor and on the basis of that information, issued their Indictment.
If there is no information given to the Grand Jury by the prosecutor then there is nothing upon which the Grand Jury can AGREE WITH, and that is Prima Facia evidence that the prosecutors perpetrated a fraud against YOU! A fraud which is grounds for the attorney’s to be disbarred and for you to be released immediately for fraud in the Indictment.
3. When you see that there was no information given to the Grand Jury, you can then
file an “Admission to the Clerk” showing there never was any Charge against you.
From Marty who wanted to add this as well:
[Christine, Dick may want to look carefully at the difference between Coram nobis and Coram non judice.Â Coram nobis is a procedural tool whose purpose is to correct errors of fact only, and its function is to bring before the court rendering the judgment matters of fact which, if known at time judgment was rendered, would have prevented its rendition. The Coram nobis is directed to the Court that made the error, rather
than to a higher court.
Coram non judice is about a court which had no jurisdiction in the matter, making the judgment void.Â In Dickâ€™s
case there is probably a mixture of errors of fact and errors of procedure.Â Most fundamental fact is that Dick had a private contract with his employees and that contract did NOT involve the irs as a third party.Â All government officials took solemn oaths to uphold Dickâ€™s right to contract or not contract with
his private employees, yet all those officials betrayed their oaths by forcing Dick into a three party
contract against his will.Â That of itself left government officials without jurisdiction over Dick.Â But if, on top of all that, they also failed to abide by Due Process of Law in securing a proper Grand Jury
Indictment, then again they lost jurisdiction before they even went to trial with a jury of twelve in Texas.
If there was no actual Grand Jury Indictment or the Indictment was based upon false information given by
prosecutors to the Grand Jury, then there was NO JURISDICTION to proceed against Dick.
See supporting case law below]
Amendment VI of the USA Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trail, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance
of counsel for his defense.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43: â€œThe individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a
citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to
contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.
He owes no such duty to the state, since he received nothing therefrom beyond the
protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed long antecedent to the
organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law and in
accordance with the Constitution.â€
Florida Evidence Code, Rule 50.501 Except as otherwise provide by this chapter, any
other statute, or the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida, no person
in a legal proceeding has a privilege to:
(1)Â Refuse to be a witness
(2)Â Refuse to disclose any matter
(3)Â Refuse to produce any object or writing
(4) Prevent another from being a witness, from disclosing any matter, or from producing
any object or writing.
(Dick may want to search for a similar Evidence Code in Texas, but even if he canâ€™t find
such for Texas, he can rely upon Florida law by way of Article IV of the U.S. constitution)
Honomichl v. State 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D. 1983): â€œWithout a formal and sufficient
indictment or information, a court does not acquire subject-matter jurisdiction, and thus,
an accused may not be punished for a crime. The court must have personal and subject
matter jurisdiction before it may act on a criminal charge.â€ [MUST be a formal AND
and SUFFICIENT Indictment!]
MachibrodaÂ vÂ US, 368Â USÂ 487; AlbrechtÂ vÂ US, 273Â USÂ 1. Â â€œJurisdictionÂ is acquired by
statutory authorization and valid process but not by aÂ plea. Â AÂ plea of guilty when the
court does not have jurisdiction does not vest jurisdiction in theÂ court nor does it bar a
challenge toÂ jurisdiction. Â WithoutÂ jurisdiction, allÂ orders areÂ void (notÂ merelyÂ voidable)
andÂ fines, penalties, restitution,Â etc., areÂ refundable.â€
Ligon v. Williams 637 NE 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994): 5. â€œVoid judgment may be attacked at
any time, directly or collaterally, and petitioner need not demonstrate due diligence and
meritorious claims or defense if seeking relief from void judgment.â€Â 8. â€œOrders entered by court
in absence of justiciable issue properly presented by parties are void, as they result from court
action which exceeds its jurisdiction.â€
Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504 Want of Jurisdiction makes â€œ…all acts of judges, magistrates,
U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.â€
Kloss v. State 116 So. 39: â€œAn attorney is an officer of the court, and he owes the duty of
good faith and honorable dealing to the courts before whom he practices his profession. His
high vocation is to inform the court as to the law and facts of the case and to aid it in doing
justice and at arriving at a correct conclusion. He violates his oath of office when he resorts
to deception or allows his client to.â€
Dodd v. Florida Bar, Fla 118 So2d 17: â€œThe primary function of trial court proceedings is
to find the truth, i.e. the true facts, in disputes between man and his neighbor and man and
his government, in order that the applicable law may be applied thereto so as to reach a just
conclusion.Â When an attorney adds or allows false testimony to be cast into the crucible
from which the truth is to be refined and taken to be weighed on the scales of justice, he
makes impure the product and makes it impossible for the scales of justice to balance.Â No
breach of professional ethics, or of the law, is more harmful to the administration of justice
or more hurtful to the public appraisal of the legal profession than the knowledgeable use by
an attorney of false testimony in the judicial process. When it is done it deserves the harshest
ON THE ISSUE OF RE-SENTENSING FOR PROBATION VIALATION: 18 USC 402.
On contempt (which is precisely what they got Dick on for not showing up).Â Probation had to be revoked in order to re-sentence Dick, and the MAXIMUM sentence can only be 6 months, AND they cannot re-invoke probation.Â That means that by December Dick should have served the max and cannot be held to any probation upon release!
Â Â Â 18 USC Sec. 402Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 01/05/2009
Â Â Â TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Â Â Â PART I - CRIMES
Â Â Â CHAPTER 21 - CONTEMPTS
Â Â Â Sec. 402. Contempts constituting crimes
Â Â Â Â Â Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any
Â Â Â lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any
Â Â Â district court of the United States or any court of the District of
Â Â Â Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden,
Â Â Â if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute
Â Â Â also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or
Â Â Â under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall
Â Â Â be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this
Â Â Â title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or
Â Â Â imprisonment, or both.
Â Â Â Â Â Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the
Â Â Â complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the
Â Â Â contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or
Â Â Â apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case
Â Â Â shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the
Â Â Â accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such
Â Â Â imprisonment exceed the term of six months.
Â Â Â Â Â This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts
Â Â Â committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to
Â Â Â obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed
Â Â Â in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree,
Â Â Â or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in
Â Â Â the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and
Â Â Â all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this
Â Â Â section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at
Â Â Â law.
Â Â Â Â Â For purposes of this section, the term "State" includes a State
Â Â Â of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any
Â Â Â commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.