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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: The Judge Won't Rule On My Motions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.