- Have to be careful about suing them as things get worse before they get better and the good ol boys will be happy to fabricate reasons to cite you. I speakMessage 1 of 46 , Aug 12, 2008View SourceHave to be careful about suing them as things get worse before they get better and the "good ol' boys" will be happy to fabricate reasons to cite you. I speak of this from experience as I've caused two chiefs to be fired as well as two officers. I've gone through hell since, but watch what you are doing and always have a recorder and digital movie camera rolling when they stop you. Once the wake up and figure out you are serious the will have to stop. I was able to get the town manager on my side, which helped as he had seen I knew what I was talking about and because of the harassment of the chiefs and officers the towns were liable for HUGE law suits. By the way, one of the officers who was canned is now in Texas, working as a cop.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Roy Dobbs <dobbsy49@...>
> I agree with what you say, the officers are to have oaths on file before
> undertaking duties of office. Besides if they are going to preach to us about
> doing right and wrong they better be doing right themselves. I don't know if it
> will do any good but it will be on record and possibly be an appealable issue.
> You already know about objection from "Jurisdictionary" as he stresses that,
> hopefully you win and maybe they won't want you in their court anymore. From
> what I was told by an old guy who sues all the time , he's in prison, they don't
> respect you until you sue them. I don't know if you want to do all of that but
> at least get them to understand that you aren't easy pickings.
- 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.)