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

The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions

Expand Messages
  • blackspatula
    I have been participating in my case as a pro se because I cannot afford the services of an attorney to represent me. I have filed several motions to the court
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I have been participating in my case as a pro se because I cannot
      afford the services of an attorney to represent me.

      I have filed several motions to the court in the past, and the judge
      refuses to rule on any of my motions. The judge simply sits on the
      motions for 60 days until, by statute, the motions are "deemed
      denied". The judge WILL rule on motions submitted by the lawyer on
      "the other side" however.

      I believe that the judge does this so that the judge can "deny" the
      motions without have to give any finding of fact or ruling of law for
      the denial...they are simply "deemed denied". This makes it difficult
      for me to file an appeal because the judge has not issued a finding of
      fact or ruling of law that I can appeal.

      The "other side" has filed a "Motion for Fees and Costs" (against me).
      I filed a "Motion to Clarify" whereby I want the court to order the
      other side to "clarify" certain statements it made in the "Motion for
      Fees and Costs" so that I can "properly respond" to the motion. (The
      other does doesn't want to clarify because it will expose them as
      having committed fraud upon the court in the past.)

      The judge has not ruled on my Motion to Clarify...and in 2 weeks, it
      will be "deemed denied". I cannot "properly respond" to the "Motion
      for Fees" unless the other side "clarifies" what it claimed in it's
      motion.

      How can I force the issue to make the judge rule one way or the other
      on my Motion to Clarify? File a "Renewed Motion To Clarify"? A
      "Motion for Ruling"? (to "remind" the judge" that my "Motion to
      Clarify" has not yet been ruled upon and that I don't want my motion
      to be "deemed denied") Should I file a Motion To Recuse (because the
      judge has a long history of not being responsive to any of my motions)?

      The judge refuses to grant me an evidentiary hearing (where I can
      submit evidence and call witnesses) and says that "my due process
      rights are protected by 'motions practice'" But on the other hand,
      then refuses to rule on any of my motions...and just sits on them
      until they are "deemed denied".

      How can I make this judge rule on my motions?....or should I just
      request the judge to recuse itself and hand over the case to a judge
      that WILL be responsive to a pro se's motions?

      I believe this is a new tactic that courts are using to shut out pro
      se's from participating in cases...by simply not ruling on motions and
      forcing pro se's to go to the time and expense of having to appeal an
      issue that the court has never ruled upon.

      Does anyone in this group have any "tips and tricks" that I could use
      to force this judge to rule on my motions?

      BS
    • soitgoes2day@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/23/06 11:52:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... you fail making mention what state you are in some states have a legal mechanism by which you
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 23, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/23/06 11:52:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, blackspatula@... writes:


        Does anyone in this group have any "tips and tricks" that I could use
        to force this judge to rule on my motions?


        you fail making mention what state you are in
        some states have a legal mechanism by which you can file a special motion or article to Compell the Judge to do what they otherwise are sworn hired to due, hear motions! check with your local college law library.
      • Fred Marshall
        Move the court to set your motion for hearing.
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 23, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Move the court to set your motion for hearing.
        • mn_chicago
          Not a lawyer, but I would start attaching an affidavit in support of all motions. An affidavit has to be responded to, point by point, or the statements
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Not a lawyer, but I would start attaching an affidavit in
            support of all motions. An affidavit has to be responded
            to, point by point, or the statements within become
            uncontested facts.

            Refile some of your motions using this tact.

            Also, state in your affidavit that the judge has refused
            to rule on your motions.

            Understand that affidavits can only express matters of
            fact, first-hand, from you, and there can be NO conclusions.


            "I aver that the judge has failed to rule on my motion, dated..."

            A Fact.

            "The judge refuses to rule on my motion."

            A conclusion.

            There is power in an affidavit.

            Just my POV.

            If you need discovery, attach an affidavit, as well.
          • mn_chicago
            Another possibility for you to consider is to file a motion to recuse the judge for his prejudicial bias against you by not answering your motions, despite
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 24, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Another possibility for you to consider is to file a motion to
              recuse the judge for his prejudicial bias against you by not
              answering your motions, despite requesting that he do so.

              This might be the most effective tact, accompanied with an
              affidavit stating your facts.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... This is another reason not to file motions before it is a last resort. It s harder to recuse a judge the longer you wait, so why wait until he does
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 26, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jul 24, 2006, at 11:59 AM, mn_chicago wrote:

                > Another possibility for you to consider is to file a motion to
                > recuse the judge for his prejudicial bias against you by not
                > answering your motions, despite requesting that he do so.

                This is another reason not to file motions before it is a last resort.
                It's harder to recuse a judge the longer you wait, so why wait until he
                does something you don't like? I guess that jurisdiction wasn't an
                issue in this case, because making a motion sets the record in that
                regard. Is there some law saying that a judge who had no jurisdiction
                until it was waived to him has to make conclusions of law based upon a
                few "facts"?

                > This might be the most effective tact, accompanied with an
                > affidavit stating your facts.

                Affidavits are good, sometimes, when you feel talkative. Another good
                tactic is, instead of "asking" (making a "motion"), TELLING, by
                obtaining a Writ of Mandate. In fact, many judges will think you're
                not serious until you follow those correct procedures for when a
                ministerial duty is not being performed. They will call your bluff, to
                see if you are serious. If you are serious, would going for a writ, or
                filing ANOTHER "motion" be more effective?

                Regards,

                FF
              • bobert111@juno.com
                OR!, File a Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. Look in your local rules. This will give you a means of Appeal.
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 26, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  OR!, File a "Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law." Look
                  in your local rules. This will give you a means of Appeal.


                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month!
                  Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage.
                  Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... ...and a chance to see the cherry trees in bloom in our nation s capital many years later, after you feel at home in the appelate courts. I always offer
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 26, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:45 AM, bobert111@... wrote:

                    > OR!, File a "Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law." Look
                    > in your local rules. This will give you a means of Appeal.
                    >

                    ...and a chance to see the cherry trees in bloom in our nation's
                    capital many years later, after you feel at home in the appelate
                    courts. I always offer to share a motel room with my adversary if
                    funds are as tight for him as they are for me! Hahahaha!

                    Seriously, even though you have to anticipate going the appeal route in
                    every case, it is a lot of work, with slim chances statistically. That
                    is more reason to devote only 100th that energy and time to winning at
                    the IMOC.

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  • JimVeda
                    I d like the groups take on this approach. If the judge refuses to rule on your motions, why not do an administrative process on him noticing him that the
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'd like the groups 'take' on this approach.  If the judge refuses to rule on your motions, why not do an administrative process on him noticing him that the time according to the rules to respond to motions has expired and then give him "x" amount of time to answer your motions, say, ten days.  If he fails to answer your motions in the alloted time, your administrative process notices him that his failure to answer will constitute his agreement that he rules in your favor by his acquiescence.  Default him and file the default in the county records as ammo for an upper court action.  I also like the idea of simply setting a motion hearing except it assumes that you'll actually get the hearing.  An administrative process on him at least keeps the ball in your court.
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:25 PM
                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions


                      On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:45 AM, bobert111@juno. com wrote:

                      > OR!, File a "Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law." Look
                      > in your local rules. This will give you a means of Appeal.
                      >

                      ...and a chance to see the cherry trees in bloom in our nation's
                      capital many years later, after you feel at home in the appelate
                      courts. I always offer to share a motel room with my adversary if
                      funds are as tight for him as they are for me! Hahahaha!

                      Seriously, even though you have to anticipate going the appeal route in
                      every case, it is a lot of work, with slim chances statistically. That
                      is more reason to devote only 100th that energy and time to winning at
                      the IMOC.

                      Regards,

                      FF

                    • Fred Marshall
                      To elaborate on what I said earlier... ( Petition the court to set the motion for hearing.... or words to that effect) I ll give the usual disclaimer that I
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 27, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To elaborate on what I said earlier...

                        ("Petition the court to set the motion for hearing...." or words to that
                        effect)

                        I'll give the usual disclaimer that I am not attorney (nor do I play one
                        on TV), and furthermore that I'm not giving legal advice.

                        HOWEVER, I learned this from an attorney named Frederick Graves, who
                        runs www.jurisdictionary.com, at one of his recent seminars. I've been
                        listening to his CD's until I can just about quote them verbatim. He
                        says that it is common for people acting pro se, and even experienced
                        lawyers, to file motions, and then never set them for hearing. If you
                        don't set your motions for hearing, the judge can just SIT on them, and
                        not do anything. But by setting your motion for hearing, you are
                        forcing the judge to either grant or deny your motion.

                        Once the hearing for the motion is set, then you make your argument to
                        the court (i.e. the judge) why he should grant your motion. Then he has
                        to do something, and this should demonstrate that you know what you're
                        doing, and that you won't be abused as a pro se.

                        He also strongly recommends ALWAYS HAVING A COURT REPORTER anytime you
                        open your mouth in a court about anything beyond small talk. You have
                        to make your record, so that, in the event you lose, you will have
                        something to send to the appellate court in your appeal. Of course, you
                        will need to object at every opportunity, when there are grounds for an
                        objection (learn the rules of evidence), e.g. hearsay, assuming facts
                        not in evidence, argumentative, calls for speculation, leading the
                        witness, overly broad, calling for a narration, etc.

                        Another thing - if the opposing counsel makes any conclusions of fact or
                        begins to testify (he says they do this routinely), you stand up and
                        object vehemently, move to strike, because "counsel is testifying" -
                        counsel is not allowed to testify (I think that's in /Tinsley v.
                        Pagliaro/, if I'm not mistaken) - the bar rules prohibit it. Then
                        suggest that, if counsel insists on testifying, that he be put under
                        oath so that he can be cross-examined. Counsel does not have first-hand
                        knowledge, and is therefore not a competent fact witness.

                        And when there is something that you want the court to do, he says
                        "don't ask or beg; you MOVE the court to do something." The judge is
                        paid by the state to perform a duty, but he is not there to help either
                        side. He says that if the other side doesn't object to something that
                        he should, and if the judge seems to be helping the other side, to
                        forcefully object.

                        Hope your motion is granted, the judge listens to you & treats you with
                        respect, and that your case goes in your favor.

                        Fred
                      • Fred Marshall
                        Sorry - that should have been *Trinsey* v. Pagliaro - here s the link to a google search I just did using that for a search term...
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 27, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sorry - that should have been *Trinsey* v. Pagliaro - here's the link to
                          a google search I just did using that for a search term...

                          http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Trinsey+v+Pagliaro&btnG=Google+Search

                          (By the way, I first learned of that case from Richard Cornforth, a well
                          known authority in legal research circles.)
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Counsel (a right) and representation (a privilege) are two different concepts. Using an attorny for representation admits incompetence. One becomes a ward
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 30, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:05 AM, blackspatula wrote:

                            > I have been participating in my case as a pro se because I cannot
                            > afford the services of an attorney to represent me.

                            Counsel (a right) and representation (a privilege) are two different
                            concepts. Using an attorny for representation admits incompetence.
                            One becomes a ward of the court, not a free man.

                            > I have filed several motions to the court in the past, and the judge
                            > refuses to rule on any of my motions. The judge simply sits on the
                            > motions for 60 days until, by statute, the motions are "deemed
                            > denied". The judge WILL rule on motions submitted by the lawyer on
                            > "the other side" however.

                            I don't make motions (because jurisdiction is an issue I never want to
                            waive) nor will I permit attorneys not in compliance with the statutes
                            regulating the practice of law to speak in my court.
                          • Black Spatula
                            ... Hindsight is always 20/20. I admit I was incompetent---I had never been involved with the court system before and had absolutely no knowledge of court
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 30, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >Counsel (a right) and representation (a privilege) are two different 
                              >concepts. Using an attorny for representation admits incompetence. 
                              >One becomes a ward of the court, not a free man.
                               
                              Hindsight is always 20/20.   I admit I was incompetent---I had never been involved with the court system before and had absolutely no knowledge of court procedures or my option to appear without counsel.  Once my (also incompetent) attorney blew all the money I had I had no other recourse than to proceed as a pro se.  I'm still incompetent by most standards....which is why I posted here...looking for tips and tricks.

                              The court already had jurisdiction and it appears that it ignores all motions filed by unrepresented parties.  I have filed several motions to the court in the past, and the judge refuses to rule on any of my motions. The judge simply sits on the motions for 60 days until, by statute, the motions are "deemed denied". The judge WILL rule on motions submitted by the lawyer on "the other side" however.

                              >I don't make motions (because jurisdiction is an issue I never want to 
                              >waive) nor will I permit attorneys not in compliance with the statutes 
                              >regulating the practice of law to speak in my court.
                               
                              If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions? 
                               
                              I'm curious just "how" you refuse to "permit" attorneys who are not "in compliance with the statutes regulating the practice of law" to file motions?  Seems like they can file whatever they want..it's the judge who decides to rule on whatever comes across his/her desk.
                               
                              BS

                               
                              .

                            • soitgoes2day@aol.com
                              In a message dated 7/31/06 1:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... you might try filing letter with the Judicial commission on ethical conduct about judges
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 31, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 7/31/06 1:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, blackspatula@... writes:


                                If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions


                                you might try filing letter with the Judicial commission on ethical conduct about judges lackluster and degree of impropriety

                                denied due process
                              • The Handyman
                                I checked with the person that posted the question. He lives in my state. The Judge finally ruled and simple said that the motion was frivolous. That is all
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 31, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I checked with the person that posted the question.  He lives in my state.  The Judge finally ruled and simple said that the motion was frivolous.  That is all he said.  The person  then filed a Request for Written Reasons and Conclusions of Law Relied upon to determine the motion to be frivolous and the reply was simply the motion was frivolous. Is there a test for frivolousness?
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:52 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions

                                  In a message dated 7/31/06 1:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, blackspatula@ comcast.net writes:


                                  If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions


                                  you might try filing letter with the Judicial commission on ethical conduct about judges lackluster and degree of impropriety

                                  denied due process

                                • Dr. Harvey
                                  You don t file motions, you serve notice on the court by special visitation, etc, Try to obtain the tape series: ARGUMENTS ARE FOR FOOLS, published by Right
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 31, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    You don't file motions, you serve notice on the court by special visitation, etc,

                                    Try to obtain the tape series: ARGUMENTS ARE FOR FOOLS, published by Right Way L.A.W.

                                    You never answer any question; you only ask questions. Once you answer the judge's question it automatically brings you into a joinder of issues with some alleged plaintiff.

                                    Moderator/Bear: You can get "Arguments are for Fools" here:
                                    http://rochesterlaw.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=17

                                    Paste this link into your browser and press enter.

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: soitgoes2day@...
                                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:52 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions


                                    In a message dated 7/31/06 1:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, blackspatula@... writes:



                                    If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions


                                    you might try filing letter with the Judicial commission on ethical conduct about judges lackluster and degree of impropriety

                                    denied due process


                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                    Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/402 - Release Date: 7/27/2006
                                  • mn_chicago
                                    This sounds like one of those Courtroom 101 lessons we all go through. Judges are arrogant ba$t#rds, and they will push innnocents around at will, to
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 31, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      This sounds like one of those Courtroom 101 lessons we
                                      all go through. Judges are arrogant ba$t#rds, and they
                                      will push innnocents around at will, to intimidate, and
                                      to say, "Stay out of my courtroom, pro se!"

                                      Use this as a learning process and move on. Were the
                                      motions frivilous? Not likely, at least in intent.
                                      Were they lawfully presented? Can't say.

                                      I will say, my first motion was 18 pages of incomprehensible
                                      garbage, which I thought was Perry Mason-like, at the time.

                                      This is how we learn, and it's okay.
                                    • Don Schwarz
                                      The judge has to give a finding of facts and a conclusions of law. All people have the right to correct any defects in their redress of greivance.
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 1, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment



                                        The judge has to give a finding of facts and a conclusions of law.

                                        All people have the right to correct any defects in their redress of greivance.





                                        At 06:57 PM 7/31/06 -0500, you wrote:
                                        I checked with the person that posted the question.  He lives in my state.  The Judge finally ruled and simple said that the motion was frivolous.  That is all he said.  The person  then filed a Request for Written Reasons and Conclusions of Law Relied upon to determine the motion to be frivolous and the reply was simply the motion was frivolous. Is there a test for frivolousness?
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: soitgoes2day@...
                                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:52 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions

                                        In a message dated 7/31/06 1:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, blackspatula@... writes:


                                        If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions


                                        you might try filing letter with the Judicial commission on ethical conduct about judges lackluster and degree of impropriety

                                        denied due process


                                        _
                                      • Bob Miller
                                        Post Office / Postal Service: tomorrow I will meet, in person, with the postmaster. I am going to ask him some questions regarding some issues I have. If you
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 2, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Post Office / Postal Service:
                                           
                                           
                                          tomorrow I will meet, in person, with the postmaster.
                                          I am going to ask him some questions regarding some issues I have.
                                           
                                          If you have any substantive questions, please email them to me:
                                          I will ask them tomorrow: iyiyi@...
                                           
                                          Forgive the short notice.
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                        • Moisha Pippik
                                          Another thing to do with the judge, on the record, or possilby with a judicial notice, is to accept his oath, and state we have a bilateral contract based on
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Aug 3, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Another thing to do with the judge, on the record, or possilby with a judicial notice, is to accept his oath, and state we have a bilateral contract based on the oath of office.  All judges are required to have one, and even if they don't, you can presume they do by their own corporate charters(procedures).  This gives you incredible power, with a contract on the record.
                                             
                                            If the trial does not reach your pursued goals, then simply request a trial de novo.  This is not an appeal, it is a completely new trial, as if the previous trial never happened.  You can only do this without an attorney.
                                             
                                            Moisha


                                            Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                                            On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:45 AM, bobert111@juno. com wrote:

                                            > OR!, File a "Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law." Look
                                            > in your local rules. This will give you a means of Appeal.
                                            >

                                            ...and a chance to see the cherry trees in bloom in our nation's
                                            capital many years later, after you feel at home in the appelate
                                            courts. I always offer to share a motel room with my adversary if
                                            funds are as tight for him as they are for me! Hahahaha!

                                            Seriously, even though you have to anticipate going the appeal route in
                                            every case, it is a lot of work, with slim chances statistically. That
                                            is more reason to devote only 100th that energy and time to winning at
                                            the IMOC.

                                            Regards,

                                            FF


                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                            http://mail.yahoo.com

                                          • Frog Farmer
                                            ... When in the process would you do this? After a disqualification attempt fails? ... If they do not have an oath, what is it that makes anything to do with
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Aug 3, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Moisha Pippik wrote:

                                              > Another thing to do with the judge, on the record, or possilby with a
                                              > judicial notice, is to accept his oath, and state we have a bilateral
                                              > contract based on the oath of office.

                                              When in the process would you do this? After a disqualification
                                              attempt fails?

                                              >   All judges are required to have one, and even if they don't, you can
                                              > presume they do by their own corporate charters(procedures).

                                              If they do not have an oath, what is it that makes anything to do with
                                              the court "theirs"? I don't have an oath. Is their "corporate
                                              charter" mine too? How could I become one of "them" without an oath?

                                              >   This gives you incredible power, with a contract on the record.

                                              I have incredible power sooner, with no contract tying me in. I see
                                              no reason to wait and "hope" for good treatment from unqualified
                                              individuals.

                                              >  If the trial does not reach your pursued goals, then simply request a
                                              > trial de novo.  This is not an appeal, it is a completely new trial,
                                              > as if the previous trial never happened.  You can only do this without
                                              > an attorney.

                                              They try to trick me into asking for a trial, but it won't work on me.
                                              If there's no real case (evidenced by a formal complaint and properly
                                              followed procedures) then why ask for a trial?

                                              >> Seriously, even though you have to anticipate going the appeal route
                                              >> in
                                              >> every case, it is a lot of work, with slim chances statistically. That
                                              >> is more reason to devote only 100th that energy and time to winning at
                                              >> the IMOC.
                                              >>
                                              >> Regards,
                                              >>
                                              >> FF
                                              >>
                                            • Frog Farmer
                                              ... There s always a next case to come along. You NEVER want to appear without counsel, although you may be forced to do it. Don t do it voluntarily. Demand
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Aug 4, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Black Spatula wrote:
                                                >  
                                                > Hindsight is always 20/20.   I admit I was incompetent---I had never
                                                > been involved with the court system before and had absolutely no
                                                > knowledge of court procedures or my option to appear without counsel. 

                                                There's always a next case to come along. You NEVER want to appear
                                                without counsel, although you may be forced to do it. Don't do it
                                                voluntarily. Demand counsel of your choice, even if you have to resort
                                                to some homeless bum by the freeway you hire with a case of beer. The
                                                idea is to get your counsel of choice DENIED, which is then an
                                                appealable issue leading to automatic reversal. If you already know
                                                that NOBODY has the required license, you can have lots of fun.

                                                >  Once my (also incompetent) attorney blew all the money I had I had no
                                                > other recourse than to proceed as a pro se.

                                                Pro se means you know what you are doing. Much better to be "pro per",
                                                in my opinion. When you hire an attorney, if you ever want to be able
                                                to overturn a conviction based upon incompetent counsel, you will have
                                                to prove that you gave him written instructions on how to represent
                                                YOU, and that he failed to perform as instructed. This means that YOU
                                                tell HIM how to win, not he tells you. As you can see, most people
                                                have this all wrong.

                                                >   I'm still incompetent by most standards....which is why I posted
                                                > here...looking for tips and tricks.

                                                You need Bear's courses in law. And lots of your local books.

                                                > If you don't file motions....what do you file instead of motions? 

                                                Demands. Looks just like a motion, but doesn't use that word. It uses
                                                "demand" instead. It doesn't say "please" or "prays" or any other
                                                grovel language. Comes from the point of view of the master over the
                                                servants, not the subject under the rulers.
                                                 
                                                > I'm curious just "how" you refuse to "permit" attorneys who are not
                                                > "in compliance with the statutes regulating the practice of law" to
                                                > file motions?  Seems like they can file whatever they want..it's the
                                                > judge who decides to rule on whatever comes across his/her desk.

                                                You misread my words. I said that I do not permit them to SPEAK. But
                                                since you mention it, anyone can file anything as a "friend of the
                                                court". However, for one to file, there must be a "case". Here,
                                                often there is no case until the chosen victim authenticates that there
                                                is one by answering or otherwise filing after being TOLD that there is
                                                a case against them. Apparently, few people actually take the time to
                                                find out by seeing a formal verified complaint filed against them.
                                                Instead they take an impersonator's word that "there are some very
                                                serious charges leveled against you, Mr. Sixpack. How do you plead,
                                                guilty or not guilty?" You can watch this over and over again, and few
                                                sixpacks will ever demand to see a complaint, or will ever demand a
                                                formal arraignment with all of the required elements. They WILL look
                                                at the "judge" with that deer-in-the-headlights look and beg for mercy
                                                though.

                                                Regards,

                                                FF
                                              • Patrick
                                                Personally, I believe that a lot of things such as OATHS/BONDS, QUALIFICATIONS of an ATTORNEY, DENIAL of DUE PROCESS and so on can be address via the use of
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Aug 4, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                  Personally, I believe that a lot of things such as OATHS/BONDS, QUALIFICATIONS of an ATTORNEY, DENIAL of DUE PROCESS and so on can be address via the use of AFFIDAVITS.

                                                   

                                                  Here’s one I recently used.

                                                   

                                                  Patrick in California

                                                   

                                                  "Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you." - Benjamin Franklin

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  DECLARATION ON OATHS OF OFFICE REQUIRED OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

                                                   

                                                  Official Notice Requested (West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code, § 11515)

                                                  JUDICIAL NOTICE REQUIRED (West's Ann. Cal.Evid. Code, §§ 451, 453, 459).

                                                   

                                                  Declarant, Patrick ------------, is a competent witness and does Solemnly state that:

                                                  1.  The Accused/Defendant in Error is a man, one of the People of California state, and therefore, one of the holders of the inherent political power of California state, as declared in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution for California state.

                                                  2.  Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution states:

                                                  Sec. 3.  Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
                                                    
                                                         "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and alleg
                                                   ian ce to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
                                                    
                                                         "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
                                                  ________________________________________________________________
                                                    
                                                  (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")
                                                  and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become
                                                               (name of office)
                                                  a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
                                                    
                                                     And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
                                                     "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
                                                    
                                                  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 
                                                    
                                                  3.  Government Code 1360 states:
                                                    
                                                  1360.  Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of
                                                   California .
                                                  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1360-1369 
                                                  4.  Government Code 1192 states:
                                                    
                                                  1192.  When not otherwise provided for, within 10 days after receiving notice of their appointment, deputies and other subordinate officers shall take and file an oath in the manner required of their principals.
                                                  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1190-1195 
                                                    
                                                  5.  Government Code 1363 states:
                                                    
                                                  1363.  (a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required as follows:
                                                     (1) The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited to any particular county, in the office of the Secretary of State.
                                                     (2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and, except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local, or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties.
                                                     (3) Each judge of a superior court, the county clerk, the executive officer or court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall file a copy of his or her official oath, signed with his or her own proper signature, in the office of the Secretary of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed his or her oath.
                                                     (4) The oath of all officers for any independent special district, as defined in Section 56044, in the office of the clerk or secretary of that district.
                                                     (b) Every oath of office filed pursuant to this section with the Secretary of State shall include the expiration date of the officer's term of office, if any.  In the case of an oath of office for an appointed officer, if there is no expiration date set forth in the oath, or the officer leaves office before the expiration date, the appointing authority shall report in writing to the Secretary of State the officer's date of departure from office.
                                                  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1360-1369 
                                                    
                                                  6. Government Code 1770(h) states:
                                                    
                                                  1770.  An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:
                                                  (i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed.
                                                  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1770-1782 
                                                    
                                                  7.  Attached are true and correct copies of the oaths of office for the alleged “judges” of the ------------------- that I obtained from the Office of the Court Administrator at --------------------, California .
                                                    
                                                  8.  None of the oaths of office I received conforms to the oath required by Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution.
                                                    

                                                  9.  On June 22, 2006 I went to the office of the --------- County Recorder at -----------------, California and requested copies of the oaths of office for the alleged ----------- County District Attorney ---------------, the alleged --------------- Chief of Police ------------, and his alleged officer -------------.

                                                   

                                                  10.  I was informed by the Supervising Clerk ------------- (phone number) that their oaths of offices are not on file with the ----------- County Recorder .

                                                   

                                                  11. The prosecution has not provided discovery on the subject, despite my repeated demands.

                                                    

                                                  I swear that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete.

                                                     

                                                  Submitted with all due respect.

                                                   

                                                  Subscribed and Affirmed this 23rd Day of June in the year 2006.

                                                   

                                                • Patrick
                                                  The way I see it is that you are EITHER ASKING the so-called judge to EXERCISE JUDICIAL DISCRETION (thus supposedly invoking the JURISDICTION of the court)
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Aug 4, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    The way I see it is that you are EITHER ASKING the so-called “judge” to EXERCISE JUDICIAL DISCRETION (thus supposedly invoking the JURISDICTION of the court) or you are DEMANDING he do his MINISTERIAL DUTY.

                                                     

                                                      MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill.

                                                    —Ministerial act. A ministerial act may be defined to be one which a person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act being done. Acts done out of court in bringing parties into court are, as a general proposition ministerial acts. Pennington v. Streight, 54 Ind. 376; Bair v. Struck, 29 Mont. 45, 74 Pac. 69, 63 L. R. A. 481 ; State v. Nash, 66 Ohio St. 612, 64 N: E. 558: Grider v. Tally. 77 Ala. 424, 54 Am. Rep. 65.—Ministerial duty. A ministerial duty, the performance of which may in proper cases be required of a public officer by judicial proceedings, is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion ; it is a simple, definite duty arising under circumstances admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. State v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S. W. 29; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 498. 18 L. Ed. 437: People v. Jerome, 36 Misc. Rep. 256, 73 N. Y. Stipp. 306; Duvall v. Swann, 94 Md. 608. 51 Atl. 617 ; Gledhill v. Governor, 25 N. J. Law, 351. A ministerial duty arises when an individual has such a legal interest in its performance that neglect of performance becomes a wrong to such individual. Morton v. Comptroller General. 4 S. C. 473.—Ministerial officer. One whose duties are purely ministerial, as distinguished from executive, legislative, or judicial functions, requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. See U. S. v. Bell (C. C.) 127 Fed. 1002; Waldoe v. Wallace. 12 Ind. 572; State v. Loechner. 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L. R. A. 915; Reid v. Hood. 2 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 169, 10 Am. Dec. 582.—Ministerial power. See POWER. —Ministerial trust. See TRUST.  Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 781.

                                                     

                                                    Remember it the CHARACTER of the ACT that DETIRMINES its NATURE and NOT the CHARACTER of the ACTOR.

                                                     

                                                    "It was insisted during the argument on behalf of the petitioner that Congress cannot punish a State judge for his official acts; and it was assumed that Judge Cole, in selecting the jury as he did, was performing a judicial act. This assumption cannot be admitted. Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. It often is given to county commissioners, or supervisors, or assessors. In former times, the selection was made by the sheriff. In such cases, it surely is not a judicial act, in any such sense as is contended for here. It is merely a ministerial act, as much so as the act of a sheriff holding an execution, in determining upon what piece of property he will make a levy, or the act of a roadmaster in selecting laborers to work upon the roads. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court- criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?

                                                     

                                                    But if the selection of jurors could be considered in any case a judicial act, can the act charged against the petitioner be considered such when he acted outside of his authority and in direct violation of the spirit of the State statute? That statute gave him no authority, when selecting jurors, from whom a panel might be drawn for a circuit court, to exclude all colored men merely because they were colored. Such an exclusion was not left within the limits of his discretion. It is idle, therefore, to say that the act of Congress is unconstitutional because it inflicts [100 U.S. 339, 349]   penalties upon State judges for their judicial action. It does no such thing."  EX PARTE STATE OF VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)

                                                     

                                                    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/100/339.html 

                                                     

                                                    And if the ACT is NOT JUDICIAL then the so-called “judge” is POTENTIALLY LIABLE.

                                                     

                                                    "However, the Supreme Court has held that judges can be held liable for damages[1] in suits where actions which are administrative in nature are challenged.  See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224-225 (1988).  The Court in Forrester refused to attach judicial immunity to a judge's decision to fire a court employee, because the act was not judicial in nature.  The Court held that truly judicial acts must be distinguished from the administrative, legislative or executive functions that judges may occasionally be assigned to perform.  According to the Court, it is the nature of the function performed -- adjudication -- rather than the identity of the actor who performed it -- a judge -- that determines whether absolute immunity attaches to the act.[2]  Any time an action taken by a judge is not an adjudication between parties, it is less likely that the act [will be found to be] a judicial one.  Cameron v. Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 271 (6th Cir. 1994).
                                                     
                                                    In Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1989), a Chief Judge's moratorium on writs of restitution during two holiday weeks was challenged by a landlord unable to redeem his property from a tenant for those two weeks.  The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the moratorium, though performed by a judge, was not a judicial act entitled to absolute immunity.  Id. at 466.  The court noted that the act was not judicial in nature, because the legislature could have easily issued the moratorium as well.  Id. "
                                                    UNITED STATES' BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE Badillo v. Andreu, et al


                                                    http://www.ada.gov/briefs/badillbr.pdf

                                                     

                                                    And given the following it appears to me that the LEGISLATURE has CLEARING given the courts a MINISTERIAL DUTY.

                                                     

                                                    PENAL CODE 12.  The several sections of this Code which declare certain crimes to be punishable as therein mentioned, devolve a duty upon the Court authorized to pass sentence, to determine and impose the punishment prescribed.

                                                    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=2-24

                                                     

                                                    Patrick in California

                                                     

                                                    "Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you." - Benjamin Franklin

                                                     

                                                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                                                     

                                                    > Demands.  Looks just like a motion, but doesn't use that word.  It uses

                                                    > "demand" instead.  It doesn't say "please" or "prays" or any other

                                                    > grovel language.  Comes from the point of view of the master over the

                                                    > servants, not the subject under the rulers.

                                                     

                                                  • Frog Farmer
                                                    ... Most definitely, but who files it? An impersonator? You d have to have it printed in the legal newspaper of record to make it legitimate without you
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Aug 4, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Aug 4, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Patrick wrote:

                                                      > Personally, I believe that a lot of things such as OATHS/BONDS,
                                                      > QUALIFICATIONS of an ATTORNEY, DENIAL of DUE PROCESS and so on can be
                                                      > address via the use of AFFIDAVITS.

                                                      Most definitely, but who files it? An impersonator? You'd have to
                                                      have it printed in the legal newspaper of record to make it legitimate
                                                      without you being an accomplice to impersonation.

                                                      > Submitted with all due respect.

                                                      I never submit, and have no respect for incompetent impersonating liars
                                                      and trough feeders. Who has their oath in order that you submit to
                                                      them with respect?? Do they have a name?

                                                      Disgusted in California,

                                                      FF
                                                    • Frog Farmer
                                                      ... Ooohh! (Shudder!) I d NEVER want to do THAT! ... Right, that s what Writs of Mandate and Prohibition are for - ministerial duties going unperformed and
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Aug 4, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Patrick wrote:

                                                        > The way I see it is that you are EITHER ASKING the so-called “judge”
                                                        > to EXERCISE JUDICIAL DISCRETION (thus supposedly invoking the
                                                        > JURISDICTION of the court)

                                                        Ooohh! (Shudder!) I'd NEVER want to do THAT!

                                                        > or you are DEMANDING he do his MINISTERIAL DUTY.

                                                        Right, that's what Writs of Mandate and Prohibition are for -
                                                        ministerial duties going unperformed and unministerial acts being
                                                        threatened. I discovered, when doing my first one, that a
                                                        pre-requirement is that you attempt THREE TIMES to get the "minister"
                                                        to perform his duty, in writing. When you "collect all three", you
                                                        have what you need to get the writ. Writs are powerful. They do not
                                                        make you any friends (well, maybe a few down-trodden underlings in the
                                                        office root for you).

                                                        >    MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior;
                                                        > opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions,
                                                        > but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill.
                                                        > —Ministerial act. A ministerial act may be defined to be one which a
                                                        > person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
                                                        > obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the
                                                        > exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act being
                                                        > done.

                                                        Hey, like an arraignment??!! In the manner prescribed by statute?
                                                        Even if it embarrasses an impersonator because they cannot read?

                                                        > Ministerial duty. A ministerial duty, the performance of which may in
                                                        > proper cases be required of a public officer by judicial proceedings,
                                                        > is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion ; it is a
                                                        > simple, definite duty arising under circumstances admitted or proved
                                                        > to exist and imposed by law. State v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S. W. 29;
                                                        > Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 498. 18 L. Ed. 437: People v. Jerome,
                                                        > 36 Misc. Rep. 256, 73 N. Y. Stipp. 306; Duvall v. Swann, 94 Md. 608.
                                                        > 51 Atl. 617 ; Gledhill v. Governor, 25 N. J. Law, 351.

                                                        Guess who has to do the imposing by law? It was me in my cases. I'd
                                                        show them a law they never saw before, and they'd proceed to violate it
                                                        every time. Finally I decided it was not in my best interests to show
                                                        them any new laws, seeing as how they'd break them. I try to use the
                                                        ones they all seem to accept. Miranda is good. They know about that.
                                                        Surprisingly, they do not know their own rules of court, or vehicle
                                                        codes, or penal codes. not to mention (hahahah!) constitutions.

                                                        > A ministerial duty arises when an individual has such a legal
                                                        > interest in its performance that neglect of performance becomes a
                                                        > wrong to such individual. Morton v. Comptroller General. 4 S. C. 473.

                                                        Yes, and to a neighborly impersonator merely "doing his job" in
                                                        anticipation of a paycheck, risking the consequent legal liability for
                                                        damages could put his whole family at risk (will the wife take the
                                                        kids??) and could possibly ruin a career at the public trough. Much
                                                        more prudent to say to the wronged one, "have a nice day!" and prey
                                                        upon the multitudes of volunteer statists lining up in droves for
                                                        voluntary flaggellation.

                                                        > —Ministerial officer. One whose duties are purely ministerial, as
                                                        > distinguished from executive, legislative, or judicial functions,
                                                        > requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not involving the
                                                        > exercise of judgment or discretion. See U. S. v. Bell (C. C.) 127 Fed.
                                                        > 1002; Waldoe v. Wallace. 12 Ind. 572; State v. Loechner. 65 Neb. 814,
                                                        > 91 N. W. 874, 59 L. R. A. 915; Reid v. Hood. 2 Nott & McC. (S. C.)
                                                        > 169, 10 Am. Dec. 582.—Ministerial power. See POWER. —Ministerial
                                                        > trust. See TRUST.  Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 781.
                                                        >  
                                                        > Remember it the CHARACTER of the ACT that DETIRMINES its NATURE and
                                                        > NOT the CHARACTER of the ACTOR.

                                                        I remember, but most will want the exercise of judgement or discretion
                                                        (see "Judge Alex", "Judge Judy", etc, or your local traffic court) and
                                                        will stand with hat in hand and plead and explain, and offer, and
                                                        accept. And later claim rights were violated.

                                                        > Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by
                                                        > its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a
                                                        > county judge or not is of no importance.

                                                        His selection of "Charmin" for his bathroom carries no weight with me!
                                                        How about you?

                                                        > The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a
                                                        > private person as to one holding the office of a judge.

                                                        Right. Who do you know who might have ever thought THAT? Who has
                                                        offended a "judge" by disqualifying him? I have!! Who cares if he
                                                        offends trough feeders? Not me!

                                                        > It often is given to county commissioners, or supervisors, or
                                                        > assessors.

                                                        Even arraignments don't need a judge, but a case needs an arraignment.

                                                        > Such an exclusion was not left within the limits of his discretion.

                                                        After I tell "an officer" (not any impersonator!) what is not left
                                                        within the limits of his discretion, I sometimes tell them what IS
                                                        within the limits of their discretion. What is within it is, the
                                                        ability to agree with my conclusions of law, and to abandon their
                                                        former views after looking at some of the evidence I might produce in
                                                        order to illustrate their error, and possible career-busting mistake.
                                                        It is in their discretion to discard me as a suspect. A cop cannot
                                                        ever stop all speeders. He HAS to let some go who he KNOWS are guilty.
                                                        Discretion permits non-aggression where facts are in doubt. I can
                                                        prove to him that he never read his own operating instructions, and
                                                        that can be privately or in front of his paycheck provider and more
                                                        witnesses, his choice. "Have a nice day!"

                                                        > It is idle, therefore, to say that the act of Congress is
                                                        > unconstitutional because it inflicts [100 U.S. 339, 349]   penalties
                                                        > upon State judges for their judicial action. It does no such thing." 
                                                        > EX PARTE STATE OF VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)

                                                        But it took this case to prove it to a nation.

                                                        >  And if the ACT is NOT JUDICIAL then the so-called “judge” is
                                                        > POTENTIALLY LIABLE.

                                                        The liability of a real judge is different than the liability of an
                                                        impersonator.
                                                         
                                                        > "However, the Supreme Court has held that judges can be held liable
                                                        > for damages[1] in suits where actions which are administrative in
                                                        > nature are challenged.  See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224-225
                                                        > (1988).

                                                        Again, it took until 1988 for people to understand this. I knew it in
                                                        1980.
                                                         
                                                        > And given the following it appears to me that the LEGISLATURE has
                                                        > CLEARING given the courts a MINISTERIAL DUTY.
                                                        >  
                                                        > PENAL CODE 12.  The several sections of this Code which declare
                                                        > certain crimes to be punishable as therein mentioned, devolve a duty
                                                        > upon the Court authorized to pass sentence, to determine and impose
                                                        > the punishment prescribed.

                                                        Okay, but remember, "the Court" is NOT "the judge" and vice versa. The
                                                        "judge" works in the court. If you let him. My friends and I have
                                                        disqualified so many in our local areas, they have to pull old ones out
                                                        of retirement and fly them in specially for us! And then they dismiss
                                                        (for the believers, because there's really nothing TO dismiss!)
                                                        Hahahahaha!

                                                        Meanwhile, a line chants "guilty with explanation, your honor" and the
                                                        county racks up about 6,000FRN per hour.

                                                        IN A DIFFERENT WORLD,

                                                        FF
                                                      • guyuprince
                                                        ... the first time ,i m afraid but i must to communicate with the menbers who is from other countries,maybe i am the first man come from china mainland,i sit
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Aug 5, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
                                                          wrote:
                                                          >i come from China mainland,and i just enter the english corner for
                                                          the first time ,i'm afraid but i must to communicate with the
                                                          menbers who is from other countries,maybe i am the first man come
                                                          from china mainland,i sit here,zhejiang province,which near to
                                                          shanghai city.my feeling is complex,that i appreciate the law system
                                                          the developed countries had,i had just graduated from a univercity
                                                          and going into the reality,the true society.
                                                          the judge in america stands for justice !but maybe in china it
                                                          stand for nothing,even badman who do bad things to normal people .we
                                                          normal peaple are eagle to change the situation in china ,but we are
                                                          poor in power,we can't express ourselves to the government,thereis
                                                          no efficence no true justice..
                                                          i hope the international man to understand the real situation in
                                                          china ,especially the law system,the law is the first in america and
                                                          other developed countries ,but in china it is maybe the second even
                                                          the third the fourth.
                                                          >
                                                          > On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Patrick wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > > The way I see it is that you are EITHER ASKING the so-called "j
                                                          udge?
                                                          > > to EXERCISE JUDICIAL DISCRETION (thus supposedly invoking the
                                                          > > JURISDICTION of the court)
                                                          >
                                                        • Frog Farmer
                                                          ... Our countries are very much alike now. ... Lawyers may be first in America, but the law is not first anymore. Today, imaginary money seems to be first.
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Aug 5, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            On Aug 5, 2006, at 2:16 AM, guyuprince wrote:

                                                            > the judge in america stands for justice !but maybe in china it
                                                            > stand for nothing,even badman who do bad things to normal people .we
                                                            > normal peaple are eagle to change the situation in china ,but we are
                                                            > poor in power,we can't express ourselves to the government,thereis
                                                            > no efficence no true justice..

                                                            Our countries are very much alike now.

                                                            > I hope the international man to understand the real situation in
                                                            > china ,especially the law system,the law is the first in america and
                                                            > other developed countries ,but in china it is maybe the second even
                                                            > the third the fourth.

                                                            Lawyers may be first in America, but the law is not first anymore.
                                                            Today, imaginary money seems to be first.

                                                            Maybe the illusion of law is important here now.

                                                            If the law is useful to the ruling elites, they use it. If it hampers
                                                            their plans, they ignore it.

                                                            Look at George Bush. He believes that he is above the law.

                                                            And when enough people believe it, he is!
                                                          • ¹úÔ£ Éò
                                                            thanks to reply me.maybe you have chance to come to china ,to see the true law in people s lives.you say the illusion of law is very important in america,but
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Aug 6, 2006
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              thanks to reply me.maybe you have chance to come to china ,to see the true law in people's lives.you say the illusion of law is very important in america,but you know there is no alittle illusion of law in China, especially the normal people,even the government officers,if the elites do not have the illusion of law,i think it'snothing ,but the officers of autheritse have no illusion of law is big problem,you know.
                                                              the law in China cannot hamper the users,the donnot give up the laws,including
                                                              bad or good ones.you say the lawyers is first in America,but you maybe donnot know lawyer is the third even nothing in China,lawyers in some cities even have no money to help himself. it's quite diffirent between the two nations.
                                                              best wishes to you!

                                                              Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> 写道:

                                                              On Aug 5, 2006, at 2:16 AM, guyuprince wrote:

                                                              > the judge in america stands for justice !but maybe in china it
                                                              > stand for nothing,even badman who do bad things to normal people .we
                                                              > normal peaple are eagle to change the situation in china ,but we are
                                                              > poor in power,we can't express ourselves to the government,thereis
                                                              > no efficence no true justice..
                                                            • Email41@aol.com
                                                              i hope the international man to understand the real situation in china ,especially the law system,the law is the first in america and other developed countries
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Aug 7, 2006
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                i hope the international man to understand the real situation in
                                                                china ,especially the law system,the law is the first in america and
                                                                other developed countries ,but in china it is maybe the second even
                                                                the third the fourth.
                                                                What made America different from the beginning was the heart of the people in America. If a man cannot govern his own heart, he is incapable of governing anything else. The reason in America's history that Law is first is because the majority considered themselves servants of their Creator, and benefactors of the salvation offered them through His son, Y'shua. The written commandments of Scripture were the instructions regarding their duties. This is what made law first, Yahuah, who is the law giver for all of the universe. History proves that where the Creator is first, so is the law, where those who refuse to obey the commandments of the Creator, then anarchy eventually reigns. All of this to say, if you want Law to be first in China, you must change the heart of the Chinese people. Obedience to the Law will then follow.
                                                                 
                                                                Shalom,
                                                                email41

                                                                Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.