- Claim Equal Protection of the Laws . For every law that the court ignores/disregards/disrespects, you claim the same and equal protection [i.e., since youMessage 1 of 46 , Jun 30, 2008View SourceClaim 'Equal Protection of the Laws'. For every 'law' that
the 'court' ignores/disregards/disrespects, you claim the same and
equal protection [i.e., since you claim it doesn't apply to YOU, it
doesn't apply to ME , either...] ;-)))
> Here in Texas we have the new bastardized creation
> "Municipal Court of Record", which is totally
> unconstitutional, and was created solely to prevent
> appeals. Although the name says "court of record",
> the only record is an audio recording, and in order to
> appeal you must purchase a "transcript" for several
> hundred dollars. The state Criminal Code, which
> governs the form and manner of appeals, states that
> none of this is necessary, but that is routinely
> ignored. The Constitution also states, as well as the
> Criminal Code, that the rules of court shall be
> uniform throughout the state. The "court of record"
> rules are different for each municipality across the
> state. There are jurisdictions here, such as the City
> of Garland, where there have only been one successful
> appeal in 5 years (successful meaning making it to the
> county court level). How this "spy watch" procedure
> would fly is anybody's guess. Although technically
> correct in the procedure stated, whenever a court is
> notorious for disregarding all legal rules which bind
> it, what do you do then?
- On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Snowman wrote: My brief was rejected 4 times: Didn t serve DA, couldn t submit exhibit not accepted at trial, Type not largeMessage 46 of 46 , Oct 19, 2010View SourceOn Oct 19, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Snowman wrote: My brief was rejected 4 times: Didn't serve DA, couldn't submit exhibit not accepted at trial, Type not large enough, one day late.Well they did notify you of the defects, but putting this in the beginning of your filings can help sometimes…
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
THIS IS NOTICE THAT THE CONTROLLING CASE, IN ALL MY COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE COURT, WILL BE
HAINES V.KERNER 404 U.S. 519,520,(1972).
In All My Communication with the court Haines V. Kerner 404 U.S.519,520(1972), In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent
pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys.
Platsky vs CIA. 953 F. 2nd 26 (C.A.2(N.Y.),1991)In re Platsky: courterrs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how
pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
, Anastasoff v. United States,223 F.3rd 898(8th circuit) (2000)In reAnastasoff: litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart
from precedent where parties are similarly situated.
- will be the controlling cases in regards to any deficiency in mypleadings.
(actually Spooner would rip them a darn sight stronger, but let's remember
his name , anyway.)