EXCELLENT CASE LAW

[Prosay]

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”

1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”

Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted: **FRAUD**.. "An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official ( ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES) are fiduciary toward the public,… and if THEY deliberately conceal MATERIAL FACT/S from them (alleged debtor)) he/they are guilty of fraud.

The Belligerent Claimant

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

District Judge James Alger Fee

United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (at page 540)

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Feb. 26, 1947

NOTICE: Not meant to be finished or complete. Accuracy and applicability SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION

Edited August 9, 2010 by Prosay
ADDENDUM