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

Handyman's Motion 4 Properly Set Court

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    From: The Handyman [mailto:ebobie @hughes.net] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:17 PM To: Legalbear Subject: Re: Here s what was in the post to Tips & Tricks
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 18, 2010

    From: The Handyman [mailto:ebobie   @...]

    Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:17 PM

    To: Legalbear

    Subject: Re: Here's what was in the post to Tips & Tricks

     

    Bear it was nice to talk with you today.  I am still searching for the lost attachment but I found this one.  It may be what was attached even though it was created in 1995 instead of 1994. 

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Legalbear

    To: 'The Handyman'

    Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:42 PM

    Subject: Here's what was in the post to Tips & Tricks

     

     Several have asked for more input on my courtroom experiences.  I am 74 and it

    is an honor to pass what little knowledge I obtained onto a younger generation.

    90% of my attack or defense in a state court has been  on our phony money system

    and it has been my silver cross to hold up before Dracula. In my last post I

    forgot to include that your corporate/entity opposition must be represented by a

    licensed  lawyer in order for the court to be properly set.  A few has asked how

    I challenge the deputy's oath and try to disqualify him and where is the right

    to challenge a court's setting.  I'm sure there is a right in your state

    statutes but according to Ryder v. United States the right is in the

    Appointments Clause of the Constitution.  So I use:

      RYDER V. UNITED STATES (1995), 515 U.S. 177, 182, 132 l.Ed.2nd 136, 143

    wherein it held that one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional

    validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case is entitled

    to a decision on the merits.

     

     And if the judge rules adversely I immediately submit a pleading entitled:

     

     WRITTEN FINDING OF FACT , CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TO

    DETERMINE THE OATH SATISFIES THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE AN OFFICER

     

     AND SUPPORT THE DEMAND WITH:

     

     "The United States Supreme Court has held, "The parties are entitled

     to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact,

     law, or discretion presented on the record." citing Butz v Economou

     438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed. 2d 895, (1978). See Federal

     Maritime Commission v South Carolina States Ports Authority 535 U.S.

     743, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed. 2d 962, (2002).

     

     Attached is one document I have use to get a hearing.  Your state may not

    place the duty of service of process and citation solely upon the deputy, so

    first check that out.

     

       Greetings. I cannot view the attachment. Can you post again?

       Thank you,

       Steve

     

    Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

    Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST

    Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com

    www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net

    www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:

    tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

     

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