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

Trick 4 using online law data bases effectively

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Someone wrote me off group saying: Barry -------- I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court act before it is properly set it loses
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 4, 2007

      Someone wrote me off group saying:

       

      “Barry --------

       

      “I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court act before it is properly set it loses Subject Matter

      Jurisdiction.

       

      “I searched Versus Law for a "a properly set court" and found NOTHING. I searched Google with the same results. I have done a quick (half day) search on the internet and have found nothing.

       

      “It would seem to me, if a court has to be properly set or it loses Subject Matter Jurisdiction, then I would expect what is properly set would be writen down everywhere.

       

      “Any ideas or insights?”

       

      I replied, “Search in www.versuslaw.com like this: "properly set" and "subject matter jurisdiction"; or, "properly set" w/10 court; or, set w/10 court

       

      I think these are called Boolean searches. Read about the different searches in the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section at Versuslaw. Bear

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.irs-armory.com

      www.irslienthumper.com

      www.legalbears.com

      www.legalresearchvideo.com

      www.cantheydothat.com

      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    • Frog Farmer
      ... That seems obvious enough...if the recipe is not followed, the cake fails to rise... ... Maybe it s that obvious, that nobody ever had to have court case
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 4, 2007
        > Someone wrote me off group saying:
        >
        > "Barry --------
        >
        > "I was reading a case about waiving rights and it said, if the court
        > act before it is properly set it loses Subject Matter
        > Jurisdiction.

        That seems obvious enough...if the recipe is not followed, the cake
        fails to rise...

        > "I searched Versus Law for a "a properly set court" and found NOTHING.

        Maybe it's that obvious, that nobody ever had to have court case over
        it.

        > I searched Google with the same results. I have done a quick (half
        > day) search on the internet and have found nothing.
        >
        > "It would seem to me, if a court has to be properly set or it loses
        > Subject Matter Jurisdiction, then I would expect what is properly set
        > would be writen down everywhere.
        >
        > "Any ideas or insights?"

        Here's my idea: If I don't think it's set right I say so. I don't let
        just anyone overcome my objections, in other words, I would disregard
        anything the passing janitor had to say. But the point is, others too
        may be Disqualified from having standing to speak in MY case. I would
        object to calling the court properly set if there were no judge, no
        clerk, no recorder, no bailiff, no complainant, no complaint, no lawyers
        in compliance with their professional codes at Step One, all Standard
        Operating Procedure here, how about where you are? You know, if you go
        past Step One, all the witnesses will assume you had no problem worthy
        of discussion, and that waiver would tend to stick later. The time to
        deal with things is when they come up and not later on appeal. Try not
        to get to court. Then try not to get to trial, then if you lose try to
        appeal all your overruled objections (and forget it if you didn't make
        any good constitutional ones).

        I've seen people go to jail when there have been none of the
        requirements I gave above (and there may well be more), but they never
        objected. Or they'd object and then waive it in their next sentence
        without even realizing it. It's very sad, but at this point I think it
        is good that anyone at all is fighting tyranny and oppression (at the
        hands of profiteering corrupt organized racketeers).

        On another note:

        The proper term is "paycheck anticipators" and not "pay check
        anticipators" and here's why:

        "Paycheck" is the name of something that actually does not "pay" but
        merely "discharges" a debt. If we say "pay check" we are using "pay" as
        an adjective on the word "check", which would be misleading and untrue.
        It might better be called a "discharge check", but "paycheck" is a name
        given to something unique and incorporates it all under the noun form as
        it should be, like "taxpayer", which is certainly and admittedly
        different than "tax payer". See? So, "paycheck anticipators" is who
        they are, not "pay check anticipators" and since I coined the term, I
        get to define it, just like congress does in its codes!

        Regards,

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