- ... I had a conversation with an attorney who is very highly regarded for his skills in the legal system. He told me that any judge will look at my demands toMessage 1 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- one <jm367@...> wrote:
> On these facts, what I posted before is still good,I had a conversation with an attorney who is very
> because without the
> proper oath there is insufficient evidence of a duly
> certified charge
> before the court.
highly regarded for his skills in the legal system.
He told me that any judge will look at my demands to
disqualify a lawyer for lack of license and will never
let me win. He said, "No judge will ever allow it.
You are like grits of sand in the system."
This is coming from one willing to sharpen my appeal
to overturn the summary judgment against me from two
weeks ago. He was simply being matter of fact, at
least in his mind, and telling me how he views the way
my arguments will be handled.
Even more reason to disqualify the judge for lack of
Of course, I have not yet tried that, and I am sure
my reception will not be well-received. But so what!
> The officer's testimony does not state a charge.Not to be argumentative, but have you done this, and
> Did you impeach the officer ?
> You had a really ideal set up for doing so.
has it worked as easily as it is expressed?
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
- ... The import of Moisha s comments is to reenforce that what FF has been saying all along is something that has to be done in order to preserve one s freedomMessage 2 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:
> To Michael Noonan and Group:The import of Moisha's comments is to reenforce that
> Yes, keep it up. You will never learn by not
what FF has been saying all along is something that
has to be done in order to preserve one's freedom
from the current legal system.
The theme here is to take action, especially against
the judge, something I know I have been reluctant to
do, though have not admitted it sufficiently to
myself. And FF is right. This admits defeat before
Thanks to all, once again.
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
- ... Thank you. Very apt. I am going through these responses one at a time, and my computer time has run out. This is an exceenet way to summarize this entireMessage 3 of 13 , Sep 8, 2007View Source--- Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:
> I want to make a mixed martial arts (MMA) analogyThank you. Very apt. I am going through these
> for Al and Michael.
responses one at a time, and my computer time has run
This is an exceenet way to summarize this entire
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
- Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords noMessage 4 of 13 , Sep 9, 2007View Source
Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as an inoperative as though it had never been passed. It is a mere nullity."Further, anyone who operates under such a LAW OR COLOR OF A LAW DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL!!!!! There is NO IMMUNITY FOR A CRIMINAL TRESPASS OR ANY CRIMINAL ACT FOR THAT MATTER. Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto the record. Also see OWENS vs. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE Mo. 100 S.Ct. 1398, (1982) case andMANE vs. THIBITOUT, 100 S.Ct. 2502, (1982) case and these cases holding that there is NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONALLY RIGHTS and that Officers are deemed to be expert on the LAW and to advise to the LAW and give example of the LAW and could hardly claim ignorance of the LAW for a citizen may not use ignorance of the LAW as an excuse and it makes the LAW look incompetent for a duly sworn OFFICER to claim ignorance of the LAW, SO NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY EXISTS FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Further, Article 3 clause 1 very clearly states " JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND INFERIOR COURTS HOLD THEIR OFFICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION FOR HOLDING THEIR Office during BAD BEHAVIOR, so obviously, officers do NOT HOLD THEIR Office during bad behavior, and as such can claim no immunity from such unlawful act. SO CLEARLY, THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR IGNORING A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND YOU PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERIL IF YOU FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR LAW UNDER COLOR OF LAW. ERGO, YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR INJURY!!!! Also THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES, 230 F2d 486.
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.