Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Important Info for a legal defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974

    Important Info for a legal defense

    So you get confronted by law enforcement for whatever cause they claim. They charge you with some Ordinance, traffic, or statute violation. So now you have to defend yourself. Now what?

    Here are some notes from Marc Stevens videos and the links.

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

    Ask am I entitled to a fair trial?
    Am I entitled to confront my accuser? Answer will be of course
    Am I entitled to be informed? Answer will be of course
    Am I entitled to demand the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings? Well yes of course

    Also ask the prosecutor "IS there evidence of the complaining party?"
    Nobody will answer, or the judge will mumble something...
    State ok that's non responsive I asked a yes or no question
    Also Rules of evidence don't permit the Judge to testify for the prosecutor
    Look into rules for Discovery...If you ask for it, they must provide it or there is no trial. So insist on the evidence of a complaining party
    Who is the complaining party? Is the Judge claiming injury, the prosecutor, the Bailiff, the stenographer? who???

    "...The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)




    1. Court needs “Standing”
    Clifford S. v Superior Court, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 333,335“Without Standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.”
    If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause...|A| court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it's without jurisdiction. Miss. Soc of Pardons & Paroles, 896 A. 2d 809 812 (Conn. 2006)

    “As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
    Complaint ticket is NOT synonymous with cause of action
    “Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” Rames v. Bryrd, 521 US 811
    “Standing is perhaps the most important of {the jurisdictional} doctrines..standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to the review at all stages of the litigation...” NOW, Inc., v. Scheidler, 510 US 249
    “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendent's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
    Who is alleging personal injury??? Officer injured? State injured? A complainant injured? NO
    There is no violation of legal right, which means no subject matter jurisdiction Court has no Jurisdiction\validity


    2.Impeach Witness(Officer)
    Courts are for protection of individuals rights
    A plaintiff must allege personal injury Allen v. Wright 468 US 737, 751 US Supreme Court
    Ask Witness 1. “Did you file a valid cause of action?” Officer will answer yes
    2.”How many elements are in a valid cause of action?”
    Loud Objection from prosecuters calling for a legal conclusion the witness is not competent to testify
    Might say he is unable, or outside the scope of his knowledge = he is incompetent to answer the 2nd, but not the first
    Judge is forced to strike all testimony

    Ask Cop witness:
    Is it your testimony that I was in the State on this day?
    Cop answers...well yes
    Would there be any crime or case or Jurisdiction if I was not within the State on this day
    Cop answers: no
    Ask, so your confident that I was in the State on this day?
    Cop answers: yes
    Ask: is that an arbitrary opinion?
    Cop answers: well no
    Ask: so it's based on facts currently in your knowledge?
    Cop answers yes
    Ask: Ok then factually what is a State?
    Prosecutor and Judge will jump in and object to defend the system saying “Calls for a legal conclusion the witness can't testify”
    Cop already admitted and made a legal opinion, on your citation saying you broke the law

    Cop or judge may say the state is the ground, or an act of Congress passed back in ???
    Ok but the cop isn't testifying that he saw me on the ground, because that would mean the state existed before that act of congress. But that clearly isn't the case.
    Or an act of Congress creating the State...Ok but the cop isn't testifying he seen me in a piece of paper.
    The Judge can't testify on behalf of the witness' own knowledge


    3.Ask Judge
    “I am entitled to a Fair Trial” Will say yes
    Ask “Can I get a fair trial if there is conflict of interest” will answer no
    Ask Judge “Who do you represent here?” It is required that you do disclose the information parties might consider relevant to question of disqualification. The judge actually represents the state. He gets his paycheck from the State. If he refuses to answer assert a statement on the record that the judge is a representative of the state. And that he is a party to the action and therefore must recuse himself. Ever looked at the Docket? The State vs You...see the problem.

    You as a Judge represent a party to the action. Therefore no possibility of a fair trial. Think about it this way, if your brother is on trial for murder, do you want the murderers mother presiding over the trial????? No of course not, why? Because there is a conflict of interest. No possibility of a fair trial.

    Calif. Judicial Canons 3(E)(2)
    “In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties...might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.”





    So you then feel your being trampled on, and have no Rights. Well consider this:

    A Belligerent Claimant
    by Michael H. Keehn
    November 22, 2006

    I have a friend who was recently charged with numerous misdemeanors. He was charged
    because he had the audacity to confront County Government and government officials with
    doing their jobs and answering some basic questions. In the world of legal issues, there is this
    rule called tacit admission. Which government uses against ‘we the people’ on a regular basis.
    The rule works as follows:
    Government, or more likely one of its agents, accuses us of a wrong doing, perhaps
    speeding or driving without a valid drivers license. If we do not contest or dispute this
    accusation, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and file it with the court clerk
    under our case number, then the accusation against us stands by virtue of our silence...
    TACIT ADMISSION.
    In my friends many written communications (sent certified mail, return receipt requested), with
    government officials, they were given 30 days with which to respond to the questions and legal
    determinations that were asserted. A legal determination asserted would be no different than a
    policeman writing you a ticket for speeding. The officer has asserted a legal determination that
    you were speeding. It is no different. You can make legal determinations and assert them, same
    as they do.
    And if government officials do not contest nor dispute the legal determinations you’ve asserted,
    then under the rule of Tacit Admission, the asserted legal determination is accepted as fact. This
    is how it would work if government and its courts did not operate criminally. In my friends case,
    they excluded all such cases of Tacit Admission, the court excluded his affidavit of facts on the
    matter which had been signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court clerk on his case.
    Then the court, item by item, excluded the foundations of his defense.

    The question here proposed is ‘what to do if faced with a similar experience?’ Fortunately we
    occasionally have a judge that is on our side. We don’t always see them as such, but, at times,
    they are truly trying to help us. Such is the case of Federal Judge James Alger Fee. In U.S. vs.
    JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that...
    "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
    to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
    FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
    claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
    claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
    Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App.
    171, 175 N.E. 876.

    In this ruling the judge has just instructed you how to proceed. He has said that rights are not
    accorded the passive resistant. Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of his
    rights. Nor are rights available to a person who is indifferent, or in other words, a person who
    simply doesn’t care. And further, judge Fee has clearly informed you that your attorney can not
    claim your rights for you. Which is another way of saying that your attorney can not truly
    represent you. Judge Fee tells you that rights are only available to a belligerent claimant in
    person. He further stated that to claim your rights in a court of this country, you must be willing
    to engage in sustained combat.

    There you have it. You are charged with negligent homicide for shooting a crazed drug addict
    who entered your home and nearly hacked the arm off your wife with a machete and was going
    after your child with the same machete when you shot and killed him. And in a pre-trial motion
    hearing the judge rules that you can not mention the machete nor the injury to your wife. That
    you can not mention the fact that this crazed individual drove his car into the front room of your
    home. Nor can you mention that he set fire to your house. While this might seem a reach to
    you, if the crazed drug addict is actually a government agent acting to take your money, then
    this is the type of logic you can expect. It is the type of logic that was applied to my friend in the
    structuring of his defense. Anything that makes your case, anything that enhances your defense,
    anything that works against the government case against you, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED if at
    all possible.

    While the judge may rule that these matters are not allowed, the fact is that you and your family
    have paid for time in court. You would proceed as though the motions that limit your defense
    were never heard or approved. And when you are ruled in contempt you still don’t give up.
    Even if the judge puts you in jail for contempt, you don’t give up... remember, sustained
    combat. You’ve paid the price to be here, its your defense, not the courts. You become that
    Belligerent Claimant in person that Judge James Alger Fee told you to become in order to
    secure your rights. Not the courts rights, not the prosecutions rights... your rights.
    It’s your life. You can lay down and play dead, be passive, ignorant or indifferent and go to jail
    or pay the fine, or you can stand up like an adult and make your case


    So the choice is yours, what are you gonna do?





    The contents of this post are a reference only and are NOT a substitute for sound legal advise from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction!!!
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 06-08-2011 at 09:05 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    So, in short. Even when the judge tries to silence you, keep screaming?
    Plead the 5th at every question?
    I'm confused. Can someone explain this in dumb redneck talk. I'm an aviator, not a lawyer, the difference is just what end all the hot air comes out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Some would recommend using the 5th to not answer questions. Even against the IRS. The prosecutors will whine and complain. You may be asked how do you know the answer may incriminate you. You reply? Do you know that it won't. You never have to answer anything that may incriminate yourself. Some have even used that defense to avoid Blood alcohol tests etc. Why, or how? Because that evidence could be used to incriminate you.

    Well screaming at a Judge will rarely get you very far. But the main point is you have to stand up for your Rights. Nobody will uphold them for you. You have to know and assert them.

    What else don't you understand?
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  4. #4
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    HERE is a little bit more info
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  5. #5
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Ever heard the question in court: "Do you understand the charges?" What is really being asked? We assume it to mean do we comprehend things. But lets look at the legal definition for clarification.

    UNDERSTAND: To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. Western Indemnity Co. v. MacKechnie, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 456, 460; International-great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full and clear knowledge of ; to comprehend. Fox v. Schaeffer, 131 Conn. 439, 41 A.2d 46, 49. A valid contract engagement of a somewhat informal character. Winslow v. Lumber Co., 32 Minn. 238, 20 N.W. 145. This is a loose and ambiguous term, unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. Camp v. Waring, 25 Conn. 529. The term may also import simply a wish or hope, as in a will bequeathing property to another with the "understanding" that at the legatee's death, all property derived under the will should be given to the testatrix's sister. Vincent v. Rix, 127 Misc. 639, 217 N.Y.S. 393, 399.9(Blacks Law 4th ed. Pg 1696)

    So again the question is: What are they really asking? Hint...look at the bold and think about what your contracting yourself too

    Blacks Law Dictionary 4th ed

    Blacks Law Dictionary 8th ed
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 05-28-2011 at 12:45 AM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Ever heard the question in court: "Do you understand the charges?" What is really being asked?
    I stated 'no' when asked the last time I was in court, the more I have been to court the more braver I am getting in front of the judge to the chagrin of the prosecutor. The judge asked for clarification. I told him why I thought the charges where unclear. He didn't know what to do but push the case to a further date. It was then dismissed for not having PC, which I had already asked for but the prosecutor tried to take it all the way.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    The judge was likely forced to just push off the trial because you made it clear that you didn't "understand" or agree. By your assertion on the record, there was no meeting of the minds. There was no agreement and comprehension of the "nature and effect of an act"

    They want the easy fish in the barrel. They don't want the difficult cases where the individual involved has some idea of what's going on. If there are hints that you know the system they will frequently try to suppress anything and everything. Even as far as calling you into Chambers. Or making you wait till the room is empty.

    Also look into Separation of Powers. The Officers can't lawfully issue you a court summons\notice. They are agents of the Executive Branch. Any lawful court order must come from the Judicial Branch.

    For some interesting reading go to Google books and find "Law of Agency" and "Corpus Juris"
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 05-28-2011 at 12:38 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Thumbs down Don't push it

    This wannabe-constitutionalist tripe was popular 15 years ago - looks like it's crawling back out from the sewers again.

    As a prosecutor, I never lost a case when someone tried to get cute like this in court. Juries don't buy it. Judges don't buy it, and often hold those who try it in contempt - that means an extra fine and/or jail time.

    The author has an amateur and misinformed view of the law and clearly has no formal legal training - caveat emptor, folks.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    This wannabe-constitutionalist tripe was popular 15 years ago - looks like it's crawling back out from the sewers again.

    As a prosecutor, I never lost a case when someone tried to get cute like this in court. Juries don't buy it. Judges don't buy it, and often hold those who try it in contempt - that means an extra fine and/or jail time.

    The author has an amateur and misinformed view of the law and clearly has no formal legal training - caveat emptor, folks.
    Cute doesn't work, unless you are female, maybe. Informed is not a deal breaker but it helps. What is really getting interesting is all the reports of IGNORANT prosecutors. How some of these guys graduated from law school or passed the bar seems incredible that it ever happened. Makes me glad the only dealings I have had in court was as a witness. I did manage to REALLY PO the defense attorney.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    This wannabe-constitutionalist tripe was popular 15 years ago - looks like it's crawling back out from the sewers again.

    As a prosecutor, I never lost a case when someone tried to get cute like this in court. Juries don't buy it. Judges don't buy it, and often hold those who try it in contempt - that means an extra fine and/or jail time.

    The author has an amateur and misinformed view of the law and clearly has no formal legal training - caveat emptor, folks.
    I don't know of a single person who has tried this crap and succeeded. I am sure that there is the odd case with a predisposed judge and/or jury, but then, nullification happens too.

    Folks, don't take legal advice from a message board. You can't even be sure that the person to whom this post is responding is a prosecutor. I tend to believe him, but would I stake my legal future on it? No.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    This wannabe-constitutionalist tripe was popular 15 years ago - looks like it's crawling back out from the sewers again.

    As a prosecutor, I never lost a case when someone tried to get cute like this in court. Juries don't buy it. Judges don't buy it, and often hold those who try it in contempt - that means an extra fine and/or jail time.

    The author has an amateur and misinformed view of the law and clearly has no formal legal training - caveat emptor, folks.


    --Moderator deleted--

    6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Smile Mea culpa -

    I was not criticizing the author of the post - I was referring to the individual who did the video, for which there is a link. Poor wording on my part - I meant no ill will to the OP.

    Oh, and I was a prosecutor, but have joined the dark side and now practice criminal defense...mwah-ah-ah!

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    I was not criticizing the author of the post - I was referring to the individual who did the video, for which there is a link. Poor wording on my part - I meant no ill will to the OP.

    Oh, and I was a prosecutor, but have joined the dark side and now practice criminal defense...mwah-ah-ah!
    I hope you don't think that my reply was intended to be a criticism of you or your post. I am in near-complete accord with what you posted.

    I know that you are kidding about the dark side, but I just wanted to say that there are prosecutors and defense attorneys who belong to that dark side. If Liberty and the proper application of constitutional law are not their priorities, regardless of whom they represent, they belong to the dark side.

    Your post indicates that, as prosecutor or defense attorney, you don't belong to that dark side.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    As a prosecutor, I never lost a case when someone tried to get cute like this in court. Juries don't buy it. Judges don't buy it, and often hold those who try it in contempt - that means an extra fine and/or jail time.
    What, you mean to say the courts don't follow their own rules and maxims??? Say it isn't so!
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    What, you mean to say the courts don't follow their own rules and maxims??? Say it isn't so!
    No, they just don't follow Internet-lawyer-wannabe interpretations of their rules.

    Folks, don't follow legal advice unless a real lawyer has given it to you after assessing your situation. Feel free to do your own legal research, just don't listen to Internet advice.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Exactly...

    Courts do not have to play along with those who misconstrue legal concepts and who selectively quote bits and pieces of prior decisions out of context in creating "cute" questions for the court or challenges to its jurisdiction...they hold them in contempt, fine them, and incarcerate them.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    ...because so many have worked so very hard to get rid of Our Blackstone/common law based system and turn it into the one that works for the State against the citizen...Which Bentham advocated.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    27 CFR 72.11 All crimes in the United States are Commercial.
    You are not under Common Law ( Constitutional Law )
    You are under International Contract Law....Why do you think you need all those licenses and permits.
    Admiralty- Law of the sea brought on to land. And
    that goes back to Law of the Flags....But we can't talk about Flags here....They want to keep that covered up.
    Last edited by Butch00; 06-12-2011 at 12:13 AM.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    *Sigh* - You just proved my point - AGAIN!

    As I'd expressed earlier, the wannabe legal beagles keep trying to take bits and pieces of laws and cases out of context and apply them broadly outside their intended, much less reasonable, scope.

    27 CFR 72.11 is the definitions section for how BATFE disposes of seized property.

    It begins with "As used in this part...."

    Which means it is ONLY applicable in that particular part of the Code of Federal Regulations. It does not purport to be applicable in any other context, period. Hence, unless we're talking about how BATFE is disposing of personal property seized in a criminal investigation, IT HAS NO APPLICATION!!!

    It does not make all crimes commercial.

    Please, go back to the kids' table so the grownups can continue the conversation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Yup....and you just keep believing that crap.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  21. #21
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Here is some news coverage of a trial in NH where some of these issues are referenced and discussed pertaining to the trial.


    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  22. #22
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Twenty-two reasons to
    vacate a Void Judgment

    The Really BIG Deal
    The real issue in void judgments is, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION!!!!

    Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

    I can go into void judgments at great length with enough court case cites to make anybody's eyes glaze over but I shall refrain. Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties. Subject matter jurisdiction is two part ; the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.

    Even if a court (judge) has or appears to have subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be lost.

    Major reasons why subject matter jurisdiction is lost:

    (1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).

    (2) Defective petition filed, Same case as above.

    (3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)

    (4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)

    (5) A judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)

    (6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.

    (7) Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936); (8) If the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

    (9) Any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),IN re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D> Illinois, 1989).

    (10) Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994)

    (11) Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)

    (12) Where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.

    (13) When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)

    (14) Where a summons was not properly issued.

    (15) Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Courth Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)

    (16) When the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.

    (17) When the local rules of the special court are not complied with. (One Where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)

    (18) Where the statute is vague, People v. Williams, 638 N.E. 2d 207 (1st Dist. (1994)

    (19) When proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill. App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist. (1973)

    (20) Where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343 (1962); English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736, 393 N.E. 2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979) or

    (21) Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill. App. 3d 553, 331 N.E. 2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)

    And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers? If not, he is not a judge and yes, you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court. If he is proven a trespasser upon the court(upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.

    In all, there are 22 indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart. If he knows them by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the errors which might make the case a void judgment, null and void upon it's face.

    SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDS

    Before a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys - although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially), and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction = the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity) and the testimony of a competent fact witness regarding the injury (the cause of action). If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.

    A question which naturally occurs: "If I vacate avoid judgment, can they just come back and try the case again?" Answer: A new suit must be filed and that can only be done if within the statute of limitations.

    "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

    The number of void judgments on the books in America’s courthouses is so great, there is no practical way to estimate how many there are!

    IF EVERY VOID JUDGMENT WAS VACATED WITH DAMAGES, IT WOULD REPRESENT THE GREATEST SHIFT IN MATERIAL WEALTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  23. #23
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    There is more useful info to study purposes and knowledge provided by another user.

    The info is Here
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •