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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Trick 4 using online law data bases effectively

Expand Messages
  • 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 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.

      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

      > 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!


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