- ... In my mind, with regard to FF, it is more than just doing the requisite homework, there is also that special ingedient of one s ability to take inMessage 1 of 7 , Sep 6, 2007View Source--- Al Cintra-Leite <stonekutteral@...>
> I Can tell you that it's not so easy all overIn my mind, with regard to FF, it is more than just
> California- maybe Frog Farmer CAN disqualify them
> and they just go away but the
> rest of us have to deal with the same attitude you
> got....in other words WE have to follow the law but
> THEY don't!!!......
doing the requisite homework, there is also that
"special ingedient" of one's ability to take in
information and use it effectively in ways most of us
do not see.
It's all there, but individuals like FF have a certain
knack to extract more than most of us, and see things
without making assumtions. That is just my take.
Also, this was my first attempt with two different
judges...[actually three, to include my foreclosure
case]. The first judge would have nothing to do with
my demanding proof of license to practice law, so she
immediately said, "You have jury trial. Take it up
The other judge is the one I posted. I am not
displeased with the results for it prompted the judge
to engage in all kinds of disqualifying behavior,
from his acknowledge previous professional
with the 'prosector,' favoritism, I would say...to
making a judicial determination of what was sufficient
per the Illinois Constitution.
It takes time to get one's bearings and arguments
down to be effective. I'll get better and more
Keep pressing on.
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
- ... It seems that many whine about the talk without having taken the walk. ... A myopic mistake I know whenever I think about the arguments I make. CorrectMessage 2 of 7 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
>It seems that many whine about the talk without having
> How can you tell if you never tried to disqualify
> them according to the
> code? It's a process that introduces one to the
> Judicial Council if one
> persists far enough. I've never met the Judicial
> Council; never had to
> go that far because I won earlier. Many
> opportunities are presented
> along the way to quit and give up. If one's plans
> do not include
> dealing with the Judicial Council, one cannot say
> how it goes anywhere
> in California. This is right out of the codes,
> which take up but a few
taken the walk.
> people make the mistake of thinking they can somehowA myopic mistake I know whenever I think about the
> be won over, that
> they will suddenly say, "Gee, you were right about
> the law all along,
> how could we have ever made such a mistake?"
arguments I make.
Correct that misconception should free the mind to
focus more energy on the attack.
> My experience shows meMakes more sense, given the above.
> that if I tell prosecutors of a law or court
> decision, they will violate
> it, so I quit telling them anything. I put the laws
> and citations into
> my own words, and let them figure out on appeal that
> other courts and
> even the statutes themselves agree with me.
> P.S. One really hobbles oneself when one imaginesI will have to stop limping.
> more intelligence and
> coordination on the part of his adversaries than
> really exists.
> AfterI have been in court now three times in the past year,
> all, they cannot perform Step One (in so many
> processes), yet people
> forgive them these errors, to their own detriment.
> How to prevent that
> from happening would make big changes. I see so
> many cases of people
> waiving rights early so they can rush to the stage
> of the proceedings
> where they envision their "win". If their plan is
> so good, why can't
> they play out EVERY stage to win, and wait until
> their favorite
> "strategy" comes naturally into play, instead of
> waiving numerous prior
> opportunities first in order to hasten the arrival
> of the time to put
> the favorite plan into play (and then discover it
> didn't "work")?
once on my reported foreclosure case, and twice for
Not once did I seek to disqualify the judge. Why not?
I thought they would see the light and say, "Gee, you
were right about the law all along, how could we have
ever made such a mistake?"
They never did, and never will.
I will disqualify the judge every time. I will
disqualify the judge every time. I will disqualify
the judge every time. [97 more times to go.]
So, I ask myself, "How is it going each time you do
not disqualify the judge?"
Results speak for themselves.
To myself I say, "Oh ye of little faith!"
If ever there were a concise summation of why it is so
necessary to disqualify everyone, FF has just give it.
Or maybe it is just my light bulb realization that the
fantasy of expecting judges to agree is just that, a
Thanks, FF, for your relentless posting of telling
anyone who will listen to get rid of the players and
stop the act.
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
- ... And when you fail to disqualify somebody, you have made sure they qualify, which is just as good. In the majority of cases I ve seen, they don t qualify,Message 3 of 7 , Sep 10, 2007View SourceMichael Noonan wrote:
> I will disqualify the judge every time. I willAnd when you fail to disqualify somebody, you have made sure they
> disqualify the judge every time. I will disqualify
> the judge every time. [97 more times to go.]
qualify, which is just as good. In the majority of cases I've seen,
they don't qualify, but in my own experience, two did. They were old
guys pulled out of retirement, so you won't ALWAYS be able to disqualify
EVERYBODY. You can come close to it. As time goes on and real oath
takers die off, it should get easier.
> So, I ask myself, "How is it going each time you doYes, all the tips and tricks everyone knows for later stages of
> not disqualify the judge?"
> Results speak for themselves.
proceedings can be saved for when they naturally fall into place, AFTER
it is a certainty that your court is set right with qualified players.
Everything you do and every part of your case should come after one
thing and before another. If you let them arrange the steps in the
order they would prefer, or add new innovative steps of their own, or
disregard steps you know are supposed to come along in order, the odds
in favor of your fine or incarceration increase.
> If ever there were a concise summation of why it is soYes, at least TRY to win at every possible stage of the proceedings
> necessary to disqualify everyone, FF has just give it.
> Or maybe it is just my light bulb realization that the
> fantasy of expecting judges to agree is just that, a
> Thanks, FF, for your relentless posting of telling
> anyone who will listen to get rid of the players and
> stop the act.
(beginning with the Initial Moment Of Confrontation where you are really
strongest), and having the right people in the right places is something
few consider important. They trust others to have already done that
part. They think anyone in a black robe HAS to be a judge, or anyone
with a tin badge a cop! They could just play one on TV, or in your
local courthouse. But don't think disqualification is a magic fix to
all problems, because you never know where somebody qualified might
spring out of the woodwork - it's still possible some are still alive!
Knowing about all the stages of the proceedings is still a great idea,
but rushing into them is not. Move forward only when forced to do so.
Just don't let unqualified people force you, that is, unless you're a
masochist, then relax and enjoy!
- Putting really, really FIRST things FIRST! I am pretty sure I have a more viable option than dealing with neighbors (alleged officials) at the IMOC (initialMessage 4 of 7 , Sep 10, 2007View Source
Putting really, really FIRST things FIRST!
I am pretty sure I have a more viable option than dealing with “neighbors” (alleged officials) at the IMOC (initial moment of confrontation). My more viable option has to do with putting “first things first”. I exhort everyone that will listen here and now that the thing that must be put first is speaking the Word out loud in first person, present, possessive tense. Below are two Scriptures that I speak out loud whenever I am traveling about in my conveyance of the day:
3 I thank you Father that You adhere to or abide by your covenant with me and keep me in perfect and constant completeness, peace, safety, health, prosperity, tranquillity, and contentment since my mental images are continually on You, because I pledge or obligate myself to You, I lean on You; I believe on You and Your abilities. I trust You forever; for in Jah Jahuwah is the edge of the sword unchanged over time.
The great promises listed in the above Scripture hinge upon something I have written about before, keeping our “mental images…continually” upon Jahuwah. I am doing this by continually speaking the Word out loud. According to the above Scripture we must “pledge or obligate” ourselves to Jahuwah, believe on His abilities, and trust Him.
Now look at this next Scripture that I speak out loud as I travel about and whenever I say Bear’s Prayers:
Father, thank You that You have made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of Your hand have You hidden me and made me a polished arrow in Your quiver and You have kept me close and concealed me. And You have said to me, You are My servant, Yisra’el; I strive with You and with men and prevail, in Jahuwah I am favored.
When our mouths become this “sharp sword”, Jahuwah hides us and conceals us and Jahuwah favors us.
I have been driving around with Commonwealth of Israel plates for almost six years now. While having those plates on I have traversed one end of this nation to the other. In all that time, I have never been stopped over the plate. In all that time, I have had four traffic stops and left all four of them without a ticket.
Speaking these Scriptures out loud works not only for the driving issue. It works for the IRS as well. I have no contact with them whatsoever with respect to so called income tax. As most of you know, the Dept. of Justice criss-crossed this country filing 26 USC 6700 lawsuits against anyone that remotely had a webpage related to IRS. They boast that they obtained some 240 injunctions. As most of you know, I have www.irsarmory.com, www.irslienthumper.com, www.irslevythumper.com, and www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation webpage). I have never been contacted by Dept. of Justice, let alone had a suit filed against me.
Since I have been speaking the Book of Exodus out loud I have learned that Jahuwah told us to recount to our children what “fools” Jahuwah made out of the Egyptians. I like to go to court and make them look like fools. When Frog Farmer wants us to disqualify them at the IMOC and “put 1st things 1st” two things occur to me: 1) We should want to avoid the IMOC completely and this is possible by speaking the Word! 2) To avoid IMOC’s completely by speaking the Word out loud is putting the ultimate “1st thing 1st”. Now, since I do not have IMOC’s because I put the ultimate “1st thing 1st”, I no longer get to go to court and make them look like fools and that has been alright with me.
I highly recommend putting the ultimate 1st thing 1st by speaking the Word out loud; keeping our mental images fixed continually upon Him; and trusting and relying upon him to keep us hidden and in perfect and constant peace. Visit www.legalbears.com and scroll down to “Bear’s Prayers” to learn more about this and pick up a free copy of Bear’s Prayers. 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:
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
 Proberbs 16:3, “3Roll your works upon Jahuwah [commit and trust them wholly to Him; He will cause your thoughts to become agreeable to His will, and] so shall your plans be established and succeed.” Commit means to pledge or obligate oneself.
 No peace? Have you committed yourself to Jahuwah?
 He’s calling us His servants!
- ... I don t discuss list topics privately off the lists for free, so I m posting this reply to the list, and I already have given this statute at least threeMessage 5 of 7 , Sep 15, 2007View Source
> -----Original Message-----I don't discuss list topics privately off the lists for free, so I'm
> From: Ken Norbury [mailto:kennorbury@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:25 PM
> To: frogfrmr@...
> Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Illinois Judges
> so how do you disqualify the judge?
posting this reply to the list, and I already have given this statute at
least three times, but here's another:
California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 170-170.9 It's all there in
black and white, no use in me rewriting it all for you. Everyone's case
is different so you use what parts you need for your particular case.
CHAPTER 3. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES ...170-170.9
> I have always been able toMe too! I don't know what the big deal is!
> request and obtain a copy of Oath of Office for judges involved in my
> cases. What is the big deal?
> Are some not getting the Oaths?I guess. I get them. You get them. I guess some don't get them!
> I mustThe fuss is, it takes a specific action to change from a caterpillar
> don't see what all the fuss is.
into a butterfly, and from a mere neighbor into an officer of the
government. Those who wish to increase their pain may permit any fool
to act as an officer for the government. One who wishes to reduce his
pain might opt to hold neighbors to the specific requirements, thus
limiting the number of possible oppressors that can be arrayed against