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

Oath/license issue

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    I am concerned after reading several post on the oath/license issue. It disturbs me because novice seem to expects and think that simply raising such issues
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I am concerned after reading several post on the oath/license issue.  It disturbs me because  novice seem to expects  and think that simply raising such issues will yield a favorable results.  After 30 years of burning the midnight oil and losing in court I finally wised up  and backed 3 attornies  into a corner and settled/collected from them  enough to purchase a RV and take a three month trip to Alaska. I had to sign a confidentually agreement and can't say any more.  It took over three years to settle and I suggest that if you are not ready, willing and able to press the oath/license issue then don't raise it thinking a few spoken words before a high priest will win your case because it won't and you will only make bad law in the process,  if you cut them any slack. Attornies constantly look for an easy way out that does not flaw their reputation or destroy their system.  They all make mistakes. They hate work.  Feed them tons of paper.  They are slow to see our type of light but  ancious to settle once they are enlightened.  But they will make you walk the whole 9 yards and dot every i.  I had 5 unrequested settlements conferences in chambers in my case that was remanded back from the appellate court after it was erroneously dismissed.  I realize now that the dismissal was a clever device to  test one ability and see if you can muster a winning argument and have the ability to prosecute. If your issue is system sensitive (as is the oath/license) the appellate decision will be a per curiam decision or sealed, be unpublished and/or say very little.  But it is enough to silently tell the opposition to avoid trial and settle the system sensitive issue without making waves.  At least that is the way it appeared to me  throughout this litigation. Most states have an unauthorized practice of law statute making it a crime to do certain acts of litigation.  Until that lawyer representing anyone or thing produces a license to practice law he is commiting a criminal act and the Judge is aiding and abetting the act.  By law the lawyer is a first class  criminal unless he produces a LICENSE and be ADMITTED to practice law when properly challenged.  I was convicted in 1986 of unauthorized practice of law and after 5 years got a reversal and set a presedent so I am more than familiar with the issue.  Bet I read over 500 cases on the subject.  We all know the attorney can't produce a license.  But does a license  have to be tangible?  A nurse, physican, barber, engineer,etc. can all produce a tangible card or document issued by the legislature/executive branch with license written upon it but a lawyer can only produce a Bar card and diploma.  The question on appeal would be is a Bar card and diploma evidence of a license? If you raise the issue with tact you will get respect and once raised don't move on to anything else.  You are entitled to a ruling on the merits. If the judge rules that a Bar card and diploma is a sufficient license in his court  then simply file a document that I entitle Request for Written Reasons and Conclusions of Law Relied Upon to Decide that Joe Sixpact is Licensed to Practice Law in The State of Confusion.  Immediately after the Judge rules forcefully take exception to his ruling, on the record, in open court and refuse to move forward until you get the results of an interlocutory appeal from the Appellate court.  What concerns me is that a patriot just off the Banana Boat will raise the issue and move onto something else simply because the Judge said to do so.  Whether a license must be tangible and issued by a certain branch of the government or that an  oath must be Clarian clear and worded a certain way is an issue the system wants to avoid and will avoid. If your case is a foreclosure, kiss the property goodbye but hang onto the oath/license issue and you may settle in a few years.  This is a modified Mexican Standoff with a Cajun Touch and the only kind of win  we can expect. Shalom
    • Michael Noonan
      ... Thank you for an excellent post that relates to what it takes to accomplish something in the legal system many of us imagine doing but fail to take the
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- The Handyman <ebobie@...> wrote:

        > I am concerned after reading several post on the
        > oath/license issue. It disturbs me because novice
        > seem to expects and think that simply raising such
        > issues will yield a favorable results. After 30
        > years of burning the midnight oil and losing in
        > court I finally wised up and backed 3 attorneys
        > into a corner and settled/collected from them
        > enough to purchase a RV and take a three month trip
        > to Alaska. I had to sign a confidentually agreement
        > and can't say any more. It took over three years to
        > settle and I suggest that if you are not ready,
        > willing and able to press the oath/license issue
        > then don't raise it thinking a few spoken words
        > before a high priest will win your case because it
        > won't and you will only make bad law in the process,
        > if you cut them any slack...

        Thank you for an excellent post that relates to what
        it takes to accomplish something in the legal system
        many of us imagine doing but fail to take the required
        steps and prepare for the battle as you describe.

        I will reread you response more carefully for points
        to pursue. Any time you can add more without being
        in violation of your order of silence, please add any
        further general comments.

        With FF's constant drumbeat of disqualifying those
        before proceeding, and your firsthand information you
        just provided, the pieces of the puzzle continue to
        fall into place, at least for me.

        Understand that it could be that I am slower in
        learning than most, but once I get it, I can be quite
        the pit bull in opposition.

        It gets tedious barking without showing how the bite
        that follows will really hurt.

        Thank you, Handyman. This was helpful.

        Regards,

        mn



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
        http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
      • The Handyman
        If you are going to raise the oath and license issue try it this way. There is a maxim of law, which says: The principal part of everything is the beginning.
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          If you are going to raise the oath and license issue try it this way.
           

           

           

          There is a maxim of law, which says:

           

          The principal part of everything is the beginning.

           

          When you are made a party in any court action there has to be a principal beginning act where you are adversely affected or made liable to answer or appear in an action you want to avoid.   That act is SERVICE by a deputy sheriff.  So why challenge the oath of the judge, and offend him.  His involvment is not a principal part.  At this point he has done you nothing.  Why  challenge the license of the attorney knowing full well that such will also offend the court because the Judge is also an attorney.  Don’t file an answer when served…. file an EXCEPTION.  Take exception to the service.  Challenge the service act being made by a deputy with no recorded oath, or a defective oath.  Demand a show cause hearing and subpoena deuces tecum the deputy’s oath of office. Put him on the stand, under oath, and drill him about “this state” and to what “United States” his oath is given.  Place his oath into evidence.  Then ask him how he is paid for his services.  Not how much he is paid but how and with what he is paid!  With proper questions you will establish on the record that his oath is either defected upon its face or invalid because he took an oath to support Article 1, Section 10 and has broken that oath by making paper a tender in payment of debt.  He will have to admit that he accepted a paper check.  He will have to admit that he converted a paper check into paper notes (FRNs). He will have to admit that he did not receive lawful money.  He will have to admit that he did not receive PUBLIC money.  He will have to admit that he made PRIVATE money a tender in payment of debt.  That is a violation of his oath and it invalidates his oath.  This is far easier than attacking the judge's  oath or the attorney’s license.  Save those issues for the next appearance if there be one.  When you challenge the Judge's oath or attorney's license it is all argument.  Nothing is entered into evidence.  If the Judge rules that service was complete.  Take exception to his ruling and don’t discuss another thing.  Request a stay of the proceeding pending an interlocutory Appeal.  File your brief and allege that the oath is either defective or the deputy is acting outside the constitution.  You may never hear from the opposition or the appellate court or the court may find an small error other than what you raised.  If the judge proceeds to judgment without a stay you have been denied due process and a new trial will be ordered. They will then have to reserve the petition and may never do so.  But if they do  you can always raise the defective oath of the Judge and inability of the attorney to produce a license while the appellate's court's decision it presented to the State Supreme Court for certioari.   If the Supreme Court passes on the issue you have a right to bring the issue into federal court as you exhausted all state remedies.  You may also find in your statutes, as I did,  that where there is no constitutional oath there is no office and that a salary of an appointed or elected officer begins with a valid oath. The  state will never let the issue get into the federal court system. No federal judge wants to discuss Article 1, Section 10 money, oaths and attorney's license.. The Handyman


           
           






          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
          Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
          http://autos. yahoo.com/ carfinder/
        • Frog Farmer
          ... First things first. - FF s Mom ... You might think, because that s the first you d know about it, but there are even more ducks that have to line up to
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 10, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The Handyman wrote:

            > If you are going to raise the oath and license issue try it this way.
            > There is a maxim of law, which says:
            > The principal part of everything is the beginning.

            "First things first." - FF's Mom

            > When you are made a party in any court action there has to be a
            > principal beginning act where you are adversely affected or made
            > liable to answer or appear in an action you want to avoid. That act
            > is SERVICE by a deputy sheriff.

            You might think, because that's the first you'd know about it, but there
            are even more ducks that have to line up to get him to that point. And
            then, since deputy sheriffs are not deemed to be specialists in the law
            (if you don't believe that, try cross-examining one about law and see
            what the "judge" tells you!) they may not notice that what they "served"
            was a nullity for some inconspicuous technical error. It could be a
            major error. It could be that you misinterpret what was "served"
            assuming that because it was served, it had to have some import to it.
            I once failed to notice, and responded to a mere invitation to be
            prosecuted. I was such an idiot, that when I responded favorably to the
            thought of being prosecuted, they decided not to prosecute and being the
            bigger idiot than I was just days earlier, I insisted that I be
            prosecuted! I needed to WIN! So I created the need to work hard for
            nine more months instead, so friends could see something. Nobody
            respects your "win" if there is no record of it!! When you win with no
            contest, nobody can see how. So, to show everyone around me, I forced
            myself to be prosecuted and go through the whole process through to
            appeal. (None of those friends had the stamina to remain interested!)
            And the paycheck anticipators loved it because I trained new employees
            (they'd throw in a new prosecutor every time, with each one stammering
            to the judge about how they just received this case and were unprepared)
            and there were two camps in the system with one secretly cheering for me
            against the other camp who wanted me hurt in the worst way. So, be
            careful, just because something is served by a deputy, doesn't mean it
            means anything official. Look at it and think.

            Off point, this reminds me of the time a deputy came to my house to
            accuse me of stealing a cat. It was around midnight too, but his excuse
            for that was that was when he went on duty! I told him about the time I
            called the sheriff because my former girlfriend's old boyfriend
            threatened to come to my house here and steal her cat, and he actually
            did it while we were both out working somewhere else. The cat
            disappeared, and a few days later she received a photo of the cat and a
            ransom note in the mail from this psycho who had followed her here from
            New York. Anyway, the Sheriff's Department explained to me on the phone
            how you cannot steal a cat in California, since a cat cannot be owned!
            Cats are supposedly with people because they want to be and humans
            cannot own cats in California. You can house, feed and cohabitate with
            a cat, but you cannot own it, at least here. Therefore nobody can steal
            one either! After I told him that, I told him that my girlfriend was
            the one of us more familiar with the cats and would I like to wake her
            up to speak to him about it now. No. Okay, good night. Sorry. No
            problem cause cops aren't really expected to know the law!
            Hahahahahaha!

            > So why challenge the oath of the
            > judge, and offend him.

            Because here, in California, it is very obvious that he didn't take the
            oath that changes him from being a mere neighbor (who cannot do much to
            you) to a judge who can sentence you to jail or worse. Why let
            unqualified people put you behind bars for a long time?? Won't you be
            sitting in your cell regretting it later? I know I would be!

            > His involvment is not a principal part. At
            > this point he has done you nothing.

            Funny, everyone else thinks he's the Boss! And most think you had to
            have done SOMETHING in order to get there! It would be nice if they
            were impartial, but just you being there with your name on the papers is
            enough to get most to look at you in a negative light. It's bias.

            > Why challenge the license of the
            > attorney knowing full well that such will also offend the court
            > because the Judge is also an attorney.

            Doesn't anyone worry about that fact offending me?! There was a time
            when Americans didn't use an bar attorney to go to court. And you still
            don't need one. And many say it is bad to let them in, like James Alan
            Daum, with whom I tend to agree. And again, what license? There is no
            license even though the law tells me what to look for on it! I want to
            look! Show me!! Or I just cannot believe you are an attorney with
            standing to involve yourself in any case in which I am a party. I
            refuse to take someone else's word for it too. If it must be shown by
            "endorsement on the license" then the license must be physical. Maybe
            that's too much logic for the people currently anticipating paychecks
            even though they will also need an endorsement upon the reverse of that
            document as well in order to receive their irredeemable fiat paper!

            > Don't file an answer when
            > served.. file an EXCEPTION. Take exception to the service. Challenge
            > the service act being made by a deputy with no recorded oath, or a
            > defective oath. Demand a show cause hearing and subpoena deuces tecum
            > the deputy's oath of office. Put him on the stand, under oath, and
            > drill him about "this state" and to what "United States" his oath is
            > given. Place his oath into evidence. Then ask him how he is paid for
            > his services. Not how much he is paid but how and with what he is
            > paid! With proper questions you will establish on the record that his
            > oath is either defected upon its face or invalid because he took an
            > oath to support Article 1, Section 10 and has broken that oath by
            > making paper a tender in payment of debt. He will have to admit that
            > he accepted a paper check. He will have to admit that he converted a
            > paper check into paper notes (FRNs). He will have to admit that he did
            > not receive lawful money. He will have to admit that he did not
            > receive PUBLIC money. He will have to admit that he made PRIVATE
            > money a tender in payment of debt. That is a violation of his oath
            > and it invalidates his oath. This is far easier than attacking the
            > judge's oath or the attorney's license. Save those issues for the
            > next appearance if there be one. When you challenge the Judge's oath
            > or attorney's license it is all argument. Nothing is entered into
            > evidence. If the Judge rules that service was complete. Take
            > exception to his ruling and don't discuss another thing. Request a
            > stay of the proceeding pending an interlocutory Appeal. File your
            > brief and allege that the oath is either defective or the deputy is
            > acting outside the constitution. You may never hear from the
            > opposition or the appellate court or the court may find an small error
            > other than what you raised. If the judge proceeds to judgment without
            > a stay you have been denied due process and a new trial will be
            > ordered. They will then have to reserve the petition and may never do
            > so. But if they do you can always raise the defective oath of the
            > Judge and inability of the attorney to produce a license while the
            > appellate's court's decision it presented to the State Supreme Court
            > for certioari. If the Supreme Court passes on the issue you have a
            > right to bring the issue into federal court as you exhausted all state
            > remedies. You may also find in your statutes, as I did, that where
            > there is no constitutional oath there is no office and that a salary
            > of an appointed or elected officer begins with a valid oath. The
            > state will never let the issue get into the federal court system. No
            > federal judge wants to discuss Article 1, Section 10 money, oaths and
            > attorney's license.. The Handyman

            Handyman is right about how you should disqualify the deputy before the
            judge. You disqualify everyone as they enter into your affairs. Don't
            forget the clerk too. But even before the deputy enters in, others had
            to do things correctly, and what are the odds of that today?! Hah!
            "The complaint" is the very first thing that begins a case, that brings
            it into existence. It is also known as "the complainant's complaint"
            versus the DA's complaint. The DA's complaint has to come second to the
            first complaint of the injured party. Guess what? Many times there is
            no injured party or first complaint. Many times a fake DA's complaint,
            unsigned, will be shown the victim in the courtroom and he will be asked
            how he pleads and when he does, he prosecutes himself! Instead, he
            should say something like, "didn't anyone here notice this isn't signed
            by anyone?! Do you think I'm stupid enough to prosecute myself, or what?
            Who is responsible for summoning me to court over a nullity like this?"

            Actually, here in California, if a victim of the revenue enhancement
            scheme doesn't want to be prosecuted, he has to make some objections
            along the way, even though it will make him stand out as a "1
            percenter". Section 988 of the Penal Code, on arraignments, says the
            defendant has to be curious enough to want to see the complaint and ask
            for a "true copy" which obviously would have to be signed and contain
            other indicia of being an official document. But brain dead defendants
            who the system wants off the streets and acting as a source of funds for
            the private prison industry will fail to demand a proper arraignment,
            and they will believe whatever they are told on the way to jail by their
            captors.

            So, right, do not wait to make the judge the first person you
            disqualify. Make the deputy who serves you the first person you
            disqualify. Then disqualify the judge. If you want to get picky, you
            can try to disqualify the court clerk first so the complaint never
            reaches a judge. But then, only AFTER you cannot disqualify all the
            people they use against you in the court (deputy sheriff, court clerk,
            judge, court reporter) disqualify the complaint that they all think
            empowers them. If it doesn't really exist, then they aren't really
            there. It would all be a show for the believers in the audience. And
            that's exactly what it is!

            Here's the bottom line on disqualifications: you try them, and if you
            proceed through the whole process without surrendering or quitting and
            you still fail, you know you have qualified people in the roles arrayed
            against you. Tell me when that happens, and you'll be the first I've
            ever heard about!

            Regards,

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