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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] NY civil procedure technical question

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Harold probably overestimates the size and or experiences of this group. Maybe he doesn t know exactly how many members are in it, and so might think it
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Legalbear [mailto:bear@...] axed:

      > Harold: How can you trust such a technical question to a group of
      > people that you have no idea how much they know?

      Harold probably overestimates the size and or experiences of this group.
      Maybe he doesn't know exactly how many members are in it, and so might
      think it would be a quite large group with lots of experience. How many
      such groups as this exist, that deal with "tips and tricks" in court
      (thereby helping to secure freedom in the 3D real world of time and
      space and quantum physics, not some theoretically possible world of
      philosophy)? Few, I would say. So theoretically, freedom seekers and
      those with tips to share would tend to gravitate here, one might think.
      How many "should" be on this list, keeping in mind the total population
      figures with access to the internet? With other topics, when you want a
      specific direct answer with a large consensus behind it, you Google it.
      But with law, that everyone is deemed to know already, only a few
      obscure lists even TRY to find answers to questions nobody seems to have
      answers for. It is amazing, to me anyway. The ironies are wonderful to

      > Suppose that there is
      > someone on the group that does try to answer your question; how will
      > you know, whether they answered it correctly?

      Supposing that somebody has the time to do free research is a stretch.
      I originally got "into this" because I had a broken back and a triple
      skull fracture and lots of time to spend online. I advise always asking
      the question, but using answers received as guidelines and not completed
      homework. I found, in all of my own cases, that I was the only person
      interested enough in the outcome to have read and inspected every
      document in the record of the case. NOBODY ELSE ALIVE, not even anyone
      in the "government" could take their time, which I have a RIGHT to
      DEMAND when THEY START the TROUBLE! Now, and this gets back to me
      "sharing my process" or whatever I was recently asked to do, AFTER I
      spend enough TIME "qualifying" the people contesting for my credibility
      (do you see how to make each case "generic" so you can adapt it to any
      situation??) I MAY ask one or more of them, "how many of you are
      qualified to read my entire record?" Can anyone see the value in THAT
      limiting question, the same as is in Ken's question, "do you have a
      claim against me"? People will disqualify themselves from speaking to
      you. Why should you give time to a person not qualified to deal with
      your own questions and answers? Anyone making "conclusions of law"
      needs to have all the facts available. Who is more aware of facts
      dealing with you than anyone else? I would offer to go over my record
      with anyone seriously claiming to have any investigatory duties to
      fulfill in the anticipation of their next paycheck, wouldn't you? Not
      only have I not found any contestant for my credibility who has read and
      knows my record of interaction with agencies of government, but that has
      had enough of an interest in fulfilling any investigatory duties such
      that he or she was willing to take the time to investigate records I was
      gladly willing to point out for attention. I have a very thick book
      written by an expert investigator, on how to properly and thoroughly
      conduct any investigation, and am willing to go through it to assist
      anyone in achieving the state of knowledge necessary to be involved in a
      case with me. This must have been when the poison frog began to taste
      bad to the predator - in fact, taste was not yet a factor - just the
      smell was enough! I often make remarks about the way careers are either
      created or destroyed by the most unforeseen circumstances! Can anyone
      here imagine a room full of people all appearing "normal" yet all but
      one or two are working to entrap the others all in anticipation of a
      government paycheck? Check out the original World Trade Center bombing
      to get a picture of what that might look like. I've been there, done
      that, and it's a hoot when everyone realizes what has happened. Suddenly
      the left hand meets the right hand! And the "mark" gets to see what
      kind of budget he is currently worth! The budget on this frog farmer
      has recently been upped, I can tell!

      > When you prepare your
      > paperwork, what will you use as your authority? Will you say someone
      > from Tips & Tricks told me this is how it's done?

      He's be leaning on the cream of the crop, thin as it is! But he'd still
      be leaning, against a virtual ally, but a non-existent ally in the 3D
      world where one has to know one's own mind and think on one's feet.

      > For something like
      > this, I think that it is going to be better for you to study the rules
      > yourself. Bear

      The Best Advice! The amount of law one really needs to read and "know"
      is a lot smaller than one is lead to think by those with a financial
      interest in ignorance. And the internet is constantly adding to the
      resources one can personally inspect. BUT, the net has not spoken on
      every topic either, same as law. YOU very well might be the only person
      you'll EVER MEET who knows that one thing you know. So, don't wait a
      lifetime for the world to agree that it is round if you already know
      it's not flat.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.