If Polk County Circuit Court, Dallas Oregon, 97338 Hold me in contempt...

bench-the-judge

2007-11-12 08:31:53 UTC

From: e-for-***@hotmail.com
To: ***@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 <>

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.
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.

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.
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
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

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
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
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. ---

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
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

m***@gmail.com

2019-06-13 06:18:59 UTC

Permalink

Post by bench-the-judge
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 <>

=== message truncated ===
William Dixon
To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to

….