Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Lack of Statutory Jurisdiction - Ignoring Questions of Law.

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Hiring an attorney to represent you is a judicially noticed admission of incompetence, a falling upon the mercies of the system, and a general appearance
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 28, 2006
      On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Lori wrote:

      >   The atty. for the estate served a copy of a
      > nonissued/unauthorized/statutorily deficient and facially defective
      > "citation" dated 6/16/95 to which my then lawyer submitted an answer. 
      > When I learned about the bad "citation" and that he had failed to
      > challenge jurisdiction, I fired him.  I hired a criminal lawyer,
      > former A.U.S.A., who said he knew probate law.  He colluded with my
      > adversary, failing to respond timely to a summary judgment motion.  I
      > fired him, got an extension and went pro se. 

      Hiring an attorney to represent you is a judicially noticed admission
      of incompetence, a falling upon the mercies of the system, and a
      general appearance waives jurisdiction. No matter how inconvenient,
      this is the way things are. And it is logical. First things first.
      You do a second thing first, and the record shows that while what you
      did first may not be memorialized, the fact that you did it is, because
      you moved on to the second thing.

      > When I asked the appellate panel  to search the original surrogate's
      > court records, they "lost" the box full of  five years of my
      > subpoenaed probate file folders. 

      If someone had "stolen" them, what would the charges have been? If
      more than one person was involved, how would the local statutes
      describe the "conspiracy"? What kept you from taking that position and
      pressing charges yourself? What are the names of those in the chain of
      evidence? How are you going after them?

      >   They had before them the certified minutes which had no evidence of
      > issuance of process.  They avoided the question of lack of issuance of
      > process and all other arguments I raised, and ruled that because my
      > attorney appeared; I waived my jurisdictional challenge.  Appeared to
      > what?  They weren't interested. 

      That's the way it is - service of process is waived by a general
      appearance. You did not instruct your attorney in writing (to make a
      special appearance and challenge jurisdiction) therefore you cannot
      complain about "incompetent counsel" and win on that issue. You MUST
      (if you hire an attorney and wish to be able to complain later) give
      your attorney FULL written instructions in order to represent YOU. If
      you don't, it means that you have no clue what you want him to do, and
      are leaving it to his discretion what he does, in other words, you make
      yourself a ward of a court officer.

      As such, you might have had an expert witness take the stand and answer
      interrogation on your issues and evidence. As a ward, your testimony
      is merely advisory, and an expert's would give you something to use
      against interference by evil doers.

      > Now comes the fun part:  on appeal, when I challenged my adversary on
      > that issue, she responded that a "citation was filed."  Yeah!  Where? 
      > In the trash?  The minutes do not show issuance of process, usually
      > top of page one in every court docket.  She attached an exhibit - copy
      > of her facsimile "citation" as served - with an illegible court-type
      > franking stamp.

      You need to make record by questioning people on the witness stand to
      give the answers you want to have in the record. It is very satisfying
      to get lies and contradictions on the record, and to make fools of the
      liars using their own mouths and dishonest minds.

      > Her citation had no caption, no file number, no "filed" stamp;
      > It failed to include the due-process notice of what relief was
      > requested in the probate petition which was not served with the
      > "citation"; 

      Wouldn't these all be things you'd like to hear about from her under

      > In reply, I submitted an "enhanced" copy of the franking stamp, which
      > showed:
      > The franking stamp did not say "filed"; it said "received";
      > It was not received by Surrogate's Court;
      > It was "received" by the Public Administrator's office;
      > It was received on 6/15/95 - one day before it was allegedly issued!
      > When I asked the appellate court for a contempt order on my
      > submission of the above, the one-word answer was "denied."  This, when
      > faced with documentary evidence of fraud by an officer of the court!

      How did you "ask the court"? Without testimony, or specific persons
      charged, you wanted a summary judgement of contempt? On who, "the
      court"? Contempt (for ME anyway!) requires a trial. Nobody is going
      to assume contempt based upon your interpretation of facts not in
      evidence or at least not introduced as evidence at a proper hearing by
      a competent witness.

      > Skunked in the next highest state appellate court - state's chief
      > judge was buddies with the Surrogate judge - and found "no
      > constitutional issue, dismissing sua sponte, I went through the
      > federal chain, experiencing violations too numerous to mention. 
      > Briefly, the district perp, cited to his own unpublished decision as
      > precedent, and a not-on-point 2Circ. case, dismissed sua sponte, upon
      > the "letter" request of the A.G. and others.  (I took the sua-sponte
      > issue to the Supremes; they could care less.)

      They probably are going back to the very beginning, and seeing that
      while you have 20-20 hindsight, it cannot correct errors you made early
      on, in the use of your attorney.

      > Ten years after the guardianship case began, when I finally reached
      > the Supreme Court, I asked if they enforce their own cases, the cert
      > pool answered "NO."  (The 2nd Circuit had failed to obey controling
      > authority requiring dismissal only on the merits.)  The perp there,
      > who deprived me of a quorum panel,  ignored the Supreme Court's
      > original case against "heightened pleadings" and dismissal (Leatherman
      > 5Circ.), even ignored a later case by the Supreme Court directed to
      > his very circuit, citing Leatherman (Swierkowski 2Circ.), and affirmed
      > with no opinion in a summary order, after ignoring all my arguments.
      > Someone asked, in one of the posts, about people working together. 
      > My answer:  Fight alone, fail alone!

      My friend James Alan Daum would probably say you should have first
      taken your own advice and conducted your own one supreme court without
      permitting attorneys or magistrates to enter in.

      > JamesAlanDaum@...

      Tell him Frog Farmer sent you.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.