Someone wrote me off group saying: Barry -------- I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court act before it is properly set it losesMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 4, 2007View Source
Someone wrote me off group saying:
“I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court act before it is properly set it loses Subject Matter
“I searched Versus Law for a "a properly set court" and found NOTHING. I searched Google with the same results. I have done a quick (half day) search on the internet and have found nothing.
“It would seem to me, if a court has to be properly set or it loses Subject Matter Jurisdiction, then I would expect what is properly set would be writen down everywhere.
“Any ideas or insights?”
I replied, “Search in www.versuslaw.com like this: "properly set" and "subject matter jurisdiction"; or, "properly set" w/10 court; or, set w/10 court
I think these are called Boolean searches. Read about the different searches in the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section at Versuslaw. Bear
PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley , CO 80634
BEAR'S WEB PAGES:
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
... That seems obvious enough...if the recipe is not followed, the cake fails to rise... ... Maybe it s that obvious, that nobody ever had to have court caseMessage 2 of 2 , Aug 4, 2007View Source
> Someone wrote me off group saying:That seems obvious enough...if the recipe is not followed, the cake
> "Barry --------
> "I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court
> act before it is properly set it loses Subject Matter
fails to rise...
> "I searched Versus Law for a "a properly set court" and found NOTHING.Maybe it's that obvious, that nobody ever had to have court case over
> I searched Google with the same results. I have done a quick (halfHere's my idea: If I don't think it's set right I say so. I don't let
> day) search on the internet and have found nothing.
> "It would seem to me, if a court has to be properly set or it loses
> Subject Matter Jurisdiction, then I would expect what is properly set
> would be writen down everywhere.
> "Any ideas or insights?"
just anyone overcome my objections, in other words, I would disregard
anything the passing janitor had to say. But the point is, others too
may be Disqualified from having standing to speak in MY case. I would
object to calling the court properly set if there were no judge, no
clerk, no recorder, no bailiff, no complainant, no complaint, no lawyers
in compliance with their professional codes at Step One, all Standard
Operating Procedure here, how about where you are? You know, if you go
past Step One, all the witnesses will assume you had no problem worthy
of discussion, and that waiver would tend to stick later. The time to
deal with things is when they come up and not later on appeal. Try not
to get to court. Then try not to get to trial, then if you lose try to
appeal all your overruled objections (and forget it if you didn't make
any good constitutional ones).
I've seen people go to jail when there have been none of the
requirements I gave above (and there may well be more), but they never
objected. Or they'd object and then waive it in their next sentence
without even realizing it. It's very sad, but at this point I think it
is good that anyone at all is fighting tyranny and oppression (at the
hands of profiteering corrupt organized racketeers).
On another note:
The proper term is "paycheck anticipators" and not "pay check
anticipators" and here's why:
"Paycheck" is the name of something that actually does not "pay" but
merely "discharges" a debt. If we say "pay check" we are using "pay" as
an adjective on the word "check", which would be misleading and untrue.
It might better be called a "discharge check", but "paycheck" is a name
given to something unique and incorporates it all under the noun form as
it should be, like "taxpayer", which is certainly and admittedly
different than "tax payer". See? So, "paycheck anticipators" is who
they are, not "pay check anticipators" and since I coined the term, I
get to define it, just like congress does in its codes!