I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogy for Al and Michael. In MMA there is a choke hold called the guillotine. In this hold the opponents head goesMessage 1 of 13 , Sep 6, 2007View Source
I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogy for Al and Michael.
In MMA there is a choke hold called the guillotine. In this hold the opponents head goes under your arm at the arm pit with his shoulder up against his opponent’s chest. You hook the same arm under the chin of the opponent and lean down on the head. This results in pressure on the main artery in the opponent’s neck and cuts off the flow of blood to his brain. If the fighters are on the floor when this hold is obtained, the opponent defends this choke hold by standing up and elevating his hips. This relieves the pressure on the neck and eventually his opponent has to release the hold because it is not resulting in the desired result. The “choker” can prevent his opponent from standing up by wrapping his legs around the “chokee’s” torso or legs and either preventing the chokee from elevating his hips, or, by maintaining the same leverage by elevating his own hips as the chokee attempts to elevate his. All of this takes place as a referee looks on watching for the chokee to “tap out”; that is to give up before he passes out at which point the referee will stop the fight.
The way I see it, both Michael and Al’s approach are analogous in this way. They wanted to affect a guillotine choke by disqualifying everybody involved in their cases. They got their arm under the chin of their opponent and tried to press down to put pressure on the neck by orally raising the issue. In Michael’s case the judge, or the referee, got involved in the fight and lifted up the opponent’s hips for him by testifying on the issue that he knew the opponent was an attorney. In Al’s case, the opponent (judge) defended the hold by raising up her own hips and ignoring the issue. Both Al and Michael failed to recognize that for the legal guillotine to work they had to wrap their legs around the opponent and prevent him/her from elevating the hips. In a legal guillotine choke hold that would be filing a written motion to disqualify the attorney or judge on the basis they are not qualified supported by authority, insisting that the judge can not rule on the motion because she is the subject of it in Al’s case; and in Michael’s case insisting that the judge not help the opponent while ruling on the motion in Michael’s case. As soon as the judge takes any action betraying bias while ruling on the motion, off to the supervisory court you go with a complaint or petition for prohibition accompanied by a motion to stay the proceedings in the court below while the supervisory court hears and determines the issue. Talking about the intention to seek prohibition in the motion in the trial court would be analogous to preventing your opponent from raising his hips to defend the choke.
In another post when addressing threats of civil RICO I discussed the concept of needing to paint a complete picture by knowledge, actions, words, posture, etc. The reason Frog Farmer’s guillotine choke holds work for him is because he paints a picture for them that conveys that he knows how to do the choke hold and that HE WILL NOT allow them to raise their hips to defend and relieve the pressure. He lets them know that HE WILL NOT allow a judge to violate due process principles by jumping in there to elevate his opponent’s hips to relieve the pressure.
In MMA once the opponent escapes a guillotine choke hold the really good chokers will have another submission hold waiting right behind that; so the chokee goes from one form of jeapordy to another. The choker is thinking ahead, “If the chokee gets out this hold there is only one place he can go as he gets out and when he goes there something special will be waiting for him.” The thing I have excelled at that I believe causes them leave me alone is that I have demonstrated over and over to them that if they get out of one there will be another right behind it that will be just as dangerous. Sometimes it is criminal charges; sometimes it is taking them before the Supreme Court or attorney discipline. I threaten their careers and reputations. I boldly show up in places with tactics they never dreamed anyone would come up with. It is not enough to know about the choke hold. You also have to know what the defense to the hold is, anticipate its use, and nullify it effectively. Bear
PS: So much of this centers around understanding the nuances of due process. You have got to recognize exactly why, from a legal standpoint, what is happening to you that you feel is wrong, violates due process. In Michael’s case, when the judge starts elevating the opponents hips and relieving the pressure from the choke; “[raising the voice so it fills the courtroom] Objection! Judge, you violate due process when you help my opponent prosecute her case and testify on her behalf from the bench! If you are going to continue to help my opponent [by raising her hips J and relieving the pressure], I will have my motion for substitution of judge filed day after tomorrow! I will not tolerate a “structural defect” such as this in any case I am a party in!” In Al’s case; “Objection! [raising the voice so it fills the courtroom] Judge, in the CA code of criminal procedure at section so and so it specifies that even an oral motion for substitution of judge must be the first…first…first issue ruled upon in any case! Are you not following the Code because you are trying to railroad me through to a conviction?! If you are, that in itself is proof of your bias! If it was you over here being prosecuted, is this the kind of due process you would accept? You would demand full due process! You might as well admit it! That is what I am demanding; and if you do not want to give it to me…tell me right now!” I highly recommend going to the library and checking out a law book devoted to due process. Get one on objections while you are there as well.
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:
a really good person trained in mma AVOIDS the choke... Moderator/Bear: My entire point is to be the choker and make it work! ... Sick sense of humor? VisitMessage 2 of 13 , Sep 7, 2007View Sourcea really good person trained in mma AVOIDS the choke... Moderator/Bear: My entire point is to be the choker and make it work!
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
... I had a conversation with an attorney who is very highly regarded for his skills in the legal system. He told me that any judge will look at my demands toMessage 3 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- one <jm367@...> wrote:
> On these facts, what I posted before is still good,I had a conversation with an attorney who is very
> because without the
> proper oath there is insufficient evidence of a duly
> certified charge
> before the court.
highly regarded for his skills in the legal system.
He told me that any judge will look at my demands to
disqualify a lawyer for lack of license and will never
let me win. He said, "No judge will ever allow it.
You are like grits of sand in the system."
This is coming from one willing to sharpen my appeal
to overturn the summary judgment against me from two
weeks ago. He was simply being matter of fact, at
least in his mind, and telling me how he views the way
my arguments will be handled.
Even more reason to disqualify the judge for lack of
Of course, I have not yet tried that, and I am sure
my reception will not be well-received. But so what!
> The officer's testimony does not state a charge.Not to be argumentative, but have you done this, and
> Did you impeach the officer ?
> You had a really ideal set up for doing so.
has it worked as easily as it is expressed?
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
... The import of Moisha s comments is to reenforce that what FF has been saying all along is something that has to be done in order to preserve one s freedomMessage 4 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:
> To Michael Noonan and Group:The import of Moisha's comments is to reenforce that
> Yes, keep it up. You will never learn by not
what FF has been saying all along is something that
has to be done in order to preserve one's freedom
from the current legal system.
The theme here is to take action, especially against
the judge, something I know I have been reluctant to
do, though have not admitted it sufficiently to
myself. And FF is right. This admits defeat before
Thanks to all, once again.
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
... Thank you. Very apt. I am going through these responses one at a time, and my computer time has run out. This is an exceenet way to summarize this entireMessage 5 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:
> I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogyThank you. Very apt. I am going through these
> for Al and Michael.
responses one at a time, and my computer time has run
This is an exceenet way to summarize this entire
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords noMessage 6 of 13 , Sep 9, 2007View Source
Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as an inoperative as though it had never been passed. It is a mere nullity."Further, anyone who operates under such a LAW OR COLOR OF A LAW DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL!!!!! There is NO IMMUNITY FOR A CRIMINAL TRESPASS OR ANY CRIMINAL ACT FOR THAT MATTER. Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto the record. Also see OWENS vs. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE Mo. 100 S.Ct. 1398, (1982) case andMANE vs. THIBITOUT, 100 S.Ct. 2502, (1982) case and these cases holding that there is NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONALLY RIGHTS and that Officers are deemed to be expert on the LAW and to advise to the LAW and give example of the LAW and could hardly claim ignorance of the LAW for a citizen may not use ignorance of the LAW as an excuse and it makes the LAW look incompetent for a duly sworn OFFICER to claim ignorance of the LAW, SO NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY EXISTS FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Further, Article 3 clause 1 very clearly states " JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND INFERIOR COURTS HOLD THEIR OFFICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION FOR HOLDING THEIR Office during BAD BEHAVIOR, so obviously, officers do NOT HOLD THEIR Office during bad behavior, and as such can claim no immunity from such unlawful act. SO CLEARLY, THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR IGNORING A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND YOU PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERIL IF YOU FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR LAW UNDER COLOR OF LAW. ERGO, YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR INJURY!!!! Also THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES, 230 F2d 486.
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.