Re: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs
- Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork (recently deceased):
...That is, legally being able to act for him/herself namely, having the legal capacity, ability, and power to manage his/her own affairs, as opposed to someone having relinquished his/her power of judicial action, by giving up his/her power of attorney, and becoming, thereby, a ward of the court. That is, someone considered of unsound mind and under the care of a guardian.
Truly unbelievable! One is reminded of a remark by Judge Bork, to the effect that 90% of those in prison are there voluntarily i.e., by consent and permission! (You notice that he was not confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice!) Which brings to mind a Supreme Court case, in 1794, where one reads that:
The only reason, I believe, that a free man is bound by human law, is, that he binds himself. Chisholm v, Georgia, 2, Dall 440, 455.
On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, jay hawk wrote:
It doesn't often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based on mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise. Several ago one of the Supreme Court justices (sorry I can't recall which one right now) got a little attention (at least from a few folks that aren't sound asleep) by saying that everyone in jail is there voluntarily. I'm sure some folks on this list have a better memory than I and may recall who said it.
-- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete the original message.
> Once in custody the jailers will want you to sign various< appear to some right or some defense.
> things and if you decline saying you do not understand and
> need counsel first, they may charge you with Disorderly
> Conduct-failure to sign, with its own trial date to deal with.
> We need some feedback and examples on how to handle being
> forced to sign things while in custody. If you sign you may
> > https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm
> > No wonder the jailers told
> > me when asking for a signature said, "Just sign it, don't put anything
> > else on there."
What about using V.C. or Vi Coactus, meaning signed under constraint.
Wikipedia definition follows:
Vi coactusFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vi coactus is a Latin term, abbreviated as V.C., and means: 'under constraint'. It is used to indicate an agreement made under duress.
An example of its usage is that of the Dutch 17th century statesman Cornelius de Witt, who was forced to sign the act for restoration of Stadholderate. After all the entreaties by his wife, though he signed the contract but only before adding V.C. to his signature. [dead link]
--- On Mon, 4/1/13, Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:
From: Legalbear <bear@...>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Effect of "signed under duress" on Govern. Docs
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 4:16 PM
Big thanks to Hobot for this amazing link. No wonder the jailers told me when asking for a signature said, “Just sign it, don’t put anything else on there.”
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
> It doesn't often seem that way, but the courts are essentially based onI've been saying it for years, based upon my years of experience in
> mutual consent. They use words to trick you into thinking otherwise.
> Several ago one of the Supreme Court justices (sorry I can't recall which
> one right now) got a little attention (at least from a few folks that
> aren't sound asleep) by saying that everyone in jail is there voluntarily.
> I'm sure some folks on this list have a better memory than I and may
> recall who said it.
California where I have yet to see a proper arraignment, even in my own
cases, even when the judge has said,, "Oh, you want a PROPER
ARRAIGNMENT?", and then he goes on to fake one, and gets told, "close, but
no cigar!" and then they put it off for another two weeks, until 9
attempts (their seemingly maximum number) and then they dismiss for the
speedy trial rule or otherwise "dispose" of the problem case.
It's weird that in the nation in the world with the most prisoners, in the
state with the most prisoners, all those prisoners are there because they
were too lazy to read and think a little bit. They failed to have the
curiosity necessary to find out what steps their opponents had to take to
incarcerate or fine them, by reading the state constitution and Penal
Code. They failed to notice and act appropriately when their opponents
were unqualified to even speak in their presence in the courtroom! They
made admissions and confessions (the source of 90+% of convictions.) They
waive rights most times when asked to do so (beginning at the scene of the
"crime"). Mostly, they're morons, as Mark Dice so frequently proves in his