Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

DID YOU PAY A FINE OR BAIL IN FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES?

YES OR NO
WOULD YOU LIKE ALL YOUR MONEY BACK AND THE CHARGES DROPPED? YES OR NO

THEN TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND USE THE FOLLOWING TEN PAGES. THERE ARE CLAIMS BY
DAVID MYRLAND THAT THIS STRATEGY HAS ALREADY WORKED IN WASHINGTON STATE.

MAYBE IT’S TIME TO SPREAD THIS AROUND THE COURTS IN OTHER STATES.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON


IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
NORTH DIVISION
8601 160 AVENUE NE
TH

REDMOND, WA 98052
STATE OF WASHINGTON
,) No. 00048495, 00048496, and 40486. PLAINTIFF,
)
) PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE.
)
) AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE FEDERAL
) RESERVE NOTES AS BAIL IN VIOLATION OF
) U.S. Const. Article I, § 10.
vs.
)
) ADMISSION OF FULL KNOWLEDGE OF
) 18 USC §§ 471, 472, 473; RCW 9A.04, .56, and .80.
)
) CLERK’S PLEA OF NO CONTEST TO CHARGES
) OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT UNDER
) RCW 9A.80.010.
John Private Man,
)
Defendant, pro se.
)
_____________________________________________________________
TO: Judge/Clerk of Court. Please note for docket and hearing if necessary, provide Notice
.
RE: Acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes
as lawful bail.
I. PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE.
1.1 COMES NOW, Defendant in the above cited actions, seeking a Writ of Praecipe from
the Clerk of the above titled court to provide assurance of lawful authority to act in a manner
perceived by Defendant to be criminal in nature. Defendant offers this agreement as a measure to
Page 2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 2 of 10

absolve him of complicity in any such conduct if indeed it is unlawful and followed through with
by the Clerk of this Court. This is not a pleading specific to any particular action, but rather
pertains to each action in this Court over which Defendant is believed to be delinquent in his
payment of fines (bail) imposed thereunder.

1.2 The Court has demanded from the Defendant certain property as payment of bail in cases
commenced for alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Code of Washington, RCW 46.
This Court is threatening, or has indeed acted, to cause the suspension of Defendant’s license to
enjoy his automobile for his failure to render Federal Reserve Notes (hereinafter “FRNs”) in
sums specified in the docket for the above cited actions. It is this demand for something other
than gold or silver as bail that concerns the Defendant, and for the following reasons he requires
the Clerk of this Court to provide reasonable assurance that the Defendant would not be
participating in any conduct deemed to be violative of any governing provisions of law.

“The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. ”Washington state
Constitution Article I, § 2. “No state shall . . . make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in
payment of debts.”United States Constitution, Article I, § 10.

1.3 With the full understanding that this provision of the U.S. Constitution has never been
repealed or amended in any way, Defendant sees any willingness on the part of this Court to
accept FRNs in lieu of gold and silver to be violate the “supreme law.”
“ . . . Section 10, article 1, U.S. constitution, prohibits the states from making anything but
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. U.S. Constitution, amendment 10, provides
that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. . . .
(a) The act providing that debts shall be payable in legal tender of the United States,
notwithstanding any provision in the contract, of course is not subject to construction.

The only remaining question of a public nature is the validity of the act of the last legislature
providing that all contracts may be satisfied in lawful money of the United States, regardless of
their terms. . . . The power of the state to declare a legal tender is limited to gold and silver
coin. All “lawful money” of the United States is not a legal tender for private obligations by
the laws of the United States; but under the grant of power to coin money and regulate the value
thereof the federal supreme court has, I think, decided that the question relating to final payment
in private contracts is one of exclusively of federal jurisdiction and vested in congress. The legal
tender and gold
Page 3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 3 of 10

contract decisions, taken in connection with the recent case of Woodruff v. State of Mississippi,
162 U.S. 291, 16 S.Ct. 820, are controlling here.” 1

1.4 This requirement that states deal only in gold and silver is designed to prevent the nation’s
money system from losing its intrinsic value to become rather a money supply the value of which
is determined solely by the credit of a national bank. These Federal Reserve Publications do
much to explain the process of money creation sought to be averted by the Framers who have so
constrained the states.

Modern Money Mechanics: Page 3, Second Column, Paragraph 1:


“Who Creates Money? . . . The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in
banks . . . checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers’ accounts.
They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans
made by the banks are credited to borrowers’ accounts . . .

Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay,
or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. Transaction deposits
are the modern counterpart of bank notes.”

1.5 Here, no lawful authority or legislative grant, no U.S. Constitutional provision, is cited as the
authority for persons such as a bank to create U.S. dollars, currency, coins, legal tender, money,
or other reasonable facsimile. Here, it is disclosed that this blood from a turnip
1
See Dennis v. Moses, 18 Wash. 537, 548-550, 555, 600, 601 (1898). See also Foquet v. Hoadley, 3 Conn. 534, 536
(““Money” does not include treasury notes.”); Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622 (“In legal acceptation, “money”
means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for embezzling “money” is not sustainable by proof of
embezzling greenbacks or national currency notes.”); Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58, 60 (“The term “money”
does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part of the circulating medium, and for many
purposes are to be considered as money; but, in the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein.”); Johnson
v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324, 325 (“Money,” as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any
money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank
bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such.”); Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171, 172 (“The term
“money” does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it an offense to play at games,
etc., for money–the indictment charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money–cannot be sustained
by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet.”);
Williams v. State, 20 Miss. (12 Smedes & M.) 58, 63 (“Money” as used in an indictment charging the betting of
money, does not include United States treasury notes, such notes not being money in the legal acceptation.”);
Turner
v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422, 426 (“The term “money,” in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of
another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and by violence, and with intent to
steal or rob, does not include bank notes.”); Filgo v. Penny, 6 N.C. 182, 183 (“The term “money” does not include a
bank note. Such a note does not differ in its nature from any other promissory note payable to bearer.”); State v.
Hoke, 84
Ind. 137, 139 (citing Boyd v. Olvey, 82 Ind. 294; Hamilton v. State, 60 Ind. 193, 28 Am. Rep. 653) (“It is not
accurate to call currency in the shape of bills or notes “money”, for in the true sense they are not “money.”); Judah
v. Harris, (N.Y.) 19 Johns. 144, 145 (“The word “money” may be extended to bank notes, when they are known and
approved of, and used in the market as cash.”); Missouri Revised Statutes 1899, § 9123 (“The term “money” or
“moneys,” where-ever used in the chapter relating to the revenue, shall be held to mean gold, silver, or other coin,
other currency, used in barter and trade as money.”).
Page 4
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 4 of 10

artifice is a scheme conceived and implemented by “bankers.” Not banks, but bankers;
individuals are bankers, banks are not. We have here a cash creation scheme born of the
conniving of individuals who seek only personal gain, but who lack the lawful authority to
commit such an act against the economy of the nation that allows them to do business with
Americans; Modern Money Mechanics continues:
Page 7, Example 3, Expansion-
Stage 1: “Expansion takes place only if the banks that hold these excess reserves increase their
loans or investments. Loans are made by crediting the borrower’s deposit account, i.e., by
creating additional deposit money.”

“Stage 7: Expansion continues as the banks that have excess reserves increase their loans by that
amount, crediting borrowers’ deposit accounts in the process, thus creating still more money.”

1.6 Again, expansion (of the supply of U.S. dollars) takes place only when the bankers use their
banks to create “additional deposit money” and “still more money.” Individual business owners,
scheming to use their businesses to create American dollars, and involving Americans in their
activities, in their scheme of “creating still more money”; this is not a conclusion drawn from
isolated commentary. Another publication from the Federal Reserve Corporation states
impertinent part:

Points of Interest: Page 6-7, Paragraphs 7-10:


“Banks and Deposit Creation.- Depository institutions, which for simplicity we will call banks,
are different from other financial institutions because they offer checking accounts and make
loans by lending checkbook deposits. The deposit creation activity, essentially creating money,
affects interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of
credit. Banks create deposits by making loans. Rather than handing cash to borrowers, banks
simply increase balances in borrowers’ checking accounts. Borrowers can then draw checks to
pay for goods and services. This creation of checking accounts through loans is just as much a
deposit as one we might make by pushing a ten-dollar bill through the teller’s window. With
all of the nation’s banks able to increase the supply of credit in this fashion, credit could
conceivably expand without limit. . . .When banks create checkbook deposits, they create
money as well as credit since these deposits are part of the money supply.”

1.7 In only more stark affirmation of the comments from the prior publication, we are
further enlightened by this clarification, this simplification of that for which none were needed,
which says that the loans of credit are tantamount to a $10 bill, that “creating money, affects
Page 5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 5 of 10

interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of credit” and
that “they create money [and] these deposits are part of the money supply.” Another publication
from the Federal Reserve Corporation says in pertinent part:
Two Faces of Debt: Page 19, Paragraphs 3-5:
“But a depositor’s balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit-either by
granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security,
the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account or gives a check that can be
deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total
of currency and checkable deposits-the money supply-is increased. New money has been
brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit. Such newly created funds
are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as intermediaries
between savers and users of savings.” 2

1.8 No leap in logic is found in concluding that, by demanding Bank Notes instead of gold and
silver as bail, the Court will be involving the Defendant in a scheme to create U.S. dollars out of
thin air using an artifice of individual and original design, one which is patently un-
Constitutional.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8. The Congress shall have power to . . . coin money, regulate the
value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide
for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current Coin of the United States . . .

1.9 While the Founding Fathers provided that Congress shall have authority over the creation of
money, and the regulation of the value thereof, and that states must accept only gold and silver as
payment or bail, the Court has seen fit to employ a device calculated to indulge those who create
money of individual right, an activity directly responsible for Congress’ lack of control over the
value of money; inflation. Congress has gone to great lengths to protect this authority from
usurpation or tampering.

18 USC § 471. Obligations or securities of United States.- Whoever, with intent to defraud,
falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of

2Contact: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Public Information Center, P.O. Box 834, Chicago, IL 60690-0834,
phone #312-322-5111.
Page 6
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 6 of 10

the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or
both.

18 USC § 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities.- Whoever, with intent to defraud,
passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent
brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged,
counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

18 USC § 473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities.- Whoever buys, sells, exchanges,
transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other
security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true
and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

1.10 Defendant has received instruction from his U.S. and state Constitutions, supra, that says he
must not transfer to the Court as a payment of bail any such FRNs as requested/demanded under
judgment. Since these supreme authorities clearly and strictly prohibit this Court from accepting
FRNs instead of gold and silver, Defendant must be assured that he is not aiding his servants in
the commission of certain crimes by paying that which violates supreme law. If this Court
authority to accept something other than gold and silver cannot be identified, FRNs can be said
to be property to which the Court is not entitled: RCW 9A.56.020 Theft--Definition, defense.
(1) “Theft” means:
(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another
or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him of such property or services; or
(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the
value thereof, with intent to deprive him of such property or services; or RCW 9A.56.030 Theft
in the first degree--Other than firearm.
(1) A person is guilty of theft in the first degree if he or she commits theft of:
(a) Property or services which exceed(s) one thousand five hundred dollars in value other than a
firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010; or
(b) Property of any value other than a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 taken from the
person of another.
(2) Theft in the first degree is a class B felony.
Page 7
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 7 of 10

RCW 9A.56.040 Theft in the second degree--Other than firearm.


(1) A person is guilty of theft in the second degree if he or she commits theft of: (a) Property or
services which exceed(s) two hundred and fifty dollars in value other than a firearm as defined
in RCW 9.41.010, but does not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars in value; or
(2) Theft in the second degree is a class C felony.

RCW 9A.56.050 Theft in the third degree.


(1) A person is guilty of theft in the third degree if he or she commits theft of property or
services which (a) does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars in value, or (b) includes ten or
more merchandise pallets, or ten or more beverage crates, or a combination of ten or more
merchandise pallets and beverage crates.
(2) Theft in the third degree is a gross misdemeanor.
1.11 If this Court authority to accept something other than gold and silver cannot be identified, a
demand by this Court for FRNs can be said to be an unauthorized act to obtain property of
another:

RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct. (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if,
with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.
(c) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required:
(25) “Threat” means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:
(h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold
official action, or cause such action or withholding; or
(j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or
another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition,
or personal relationships;

1.12 With total indifference and wholly without regard for the situation and obligations of the
Defendant, this Court has seen fit to strip him of all chances for success and to start and raise a
family, for only several hundred dollars. The suspension of a driver’s license meets every
element of subsection (j) of RCW 9A.04.110(25) as follows:
1. Health: Forcing the Defendant to walk everywhere they go in winter, in Washington or any
number of states, requires that Defendant devote physical exertion out of door, in freezing
temperatures, in rain and snow, up and downhill, without regard even for existing physical
impairment or injury, is not healthy.
Page 8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 8 of 10

2. Safety: Without his automobile, Defendant cannot protect himself from assault in any place to
which he must travel. Further, walking on ice and snow, either on a sidewalk or on the shoulder
of the road, right beside a street or highway where cars and trucks, eighteen-wheelers, are
rushing by at speeds up to fifty mph, is not safe.

3. Business/financial condition: Much of this can depend on the employment status of the
Defendant. As an employee who lives within mass transit coverage areas, the loss of a driver’s
license might only cost a couple of hours per day and the lessening of activities while not at
work. The self employed, however, often rely on their automobiles for a great deal more than
getting to and from work, and the loss of their use can amount to the going out of business.

4. Personal relationships: Under suspension Defendant is unable to visit his family except for
holidays, maybe, because they live too far away (thirty miles), and due to the inability to make a
living he can’t afford or spare the time it takes to take a bus for such a visit (eight hours).

1.13 To the Defendant, this Court’s demand for something other than gold and silver as payment
of bail, under threat of driver’s license suspension, has all the trappings of “extortion”: RCW
9A.56.110 Extortion--Definition. “Extortion” means knowingly to obtain or attempt to obtain
by threat property or services of the owner, as defined in RCW 9A.56.010(8) and specifically
includes sexual favors.

RCW 9A.56.120 Extortion in the first degree.


(1) A person is guilty of extortion in the first degree if he commits extortion by means of a
threat as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(25)(a), (b), or (c).
(2) Extortion in the first degree is a class B felony.

RCW 9A.56.130 Extortion in the second degree.


(1) A person is guilty of extortion in the second degree if he commits extortion by means of a
threat as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(25) (d) through (j).
(3) Extortion in the second degree is a class C felony.

RCW 9A.56.140 Possessing stolen property--Definition--Presumption.


(1) “Possessing stolen property” means knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or
dispose of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the
same to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.

1.14 With all of these prohibitive authorities and evidentiary sites, Defendant is understandably
concerned over becoming unwittingly involved in conduct which is overtly
Page 9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 9 of 10

criminal in nature, and expressly prohibited by the Defendant’s Constitutions. Prior to any
remittance of bail of other forfeiture, pains, penalties, or sanctions, to this Court in the form of
FRNs, Defendant requires that the Judge/Clerk make the following affirmations.

II. RELIEF SOUGHT.


2.1 Defendant understandably requires assurances of the Court’s lawful authority to act in the
ways brought into question, supra. If this Court has the authority to accept FRNs rather than gold
and silver, surely it can cite to it. “[I]t was the judiciary’s duty “to say what the law is.” Marbury
v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (Marshal, C.J.).”
3
Where is the authority to accept anything but gold and silver?
When such is restrained from open discussion and disclosure, the only alternative gains only
credibility in the eyes of the Defendant. Please provide notice that these monetary penalties are
no longer outstanding in the eyes of the Court, or provide proof of authority to accept FRNs
instead of gold and silver as required under controlling Constitutional provisions.

2.2 This Court’s refusal to prove its authority to accept FRNs instead of gold and silver and yet
to command the Defendant to pay in FRNs gives the Defendant just cause to believe that the
payment of FRNs as bail would be his involvement in official misconduct; Defendant must
abstain. Such refusal shall also constitute refusal of FRNs as payment thus discharging all
outstanding debts. RCW 62A.3-603(a). Defendant’s concerns are found in these seemingly
essential admissions on the part of the Court:

1. I, __________________________, am Judge/Clerk of this Court, and I am authorized by


RCW/USC §§ ??? to ignore U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10 and its prohibition against this
Court accepting anything but gold and silver as payment of bail.

2. As Judge/Clerk of this Court, I am not engaging in official misconduct when I accept


something other than gold and silver as payment of bail.

3. As Judge/Clerk of this Court, I can ignore U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10 and its prohibition
regarding state’s accepting something other than gold and silver as legal tender because this
provision ??? repealed/suspended/amended that provision of the U.S. Constitution.
3
See U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1633, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Page 10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PRAECIPE; Lawful bail. Page 10 of 10

4. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land only as it pertains to the individual and
not as it pertains to government and the execution of my duties as Judge/Clerk of this Court.

5. By accepting payment for bail in something other than gold and silver, I am not in violation of
U.S. Constitution Article I, § 10, and I am not involving the Defendant in misconduct of any sort.

2.3 WHEREFORE, Defendant above named therefore petitions for instructions and disclosure of
lawful authority as described herein. The Court will find attached hereto a proposed Writ of
instruction on this issue.

2.4 If the Court is unable to satisfy this Petition for a Writ of Praecipe by providing the
requested assurances under the affirmations above, please forward to the Department of
Licensing notification of adjudication of the above cited actions (proposed Notice attached
hereto) so as to facilitate the lifting of the suspension of Defendant’s driver’s license. Also,
please mail to the Defendant at the address below notification of any hearing deemed necessary,
and a copy of any correspondence from the Court to the DOL regarding any such notice of
adjudication.

Dated:______________
Presented by:
_______________________
John Private Man, Defendant
1000 Tree of Knowledge Way
Grand Judgments, America 10101