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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] trial by jury

Expand Messages
  • balderdash88@webtv.net
    Nilbux, he did a GREAT job as you did NOT object to the documents being INTRODUCED as evidence. Bill
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Nilbux, he did a GREAT job as you did NOT object to the documents being
      INTRODUCED as evidence. Bill
    • Nilbux@aol.com
      I denied that the returns were mine. is thst not an objection?
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I denied that the returns were mine.
        is thst not an objection?
      • David L. Miner
        Nilbux -- It may or may not have been an objection, but it certainly was not accurate. The returns were yours, only you did not complete them. The IRS claims
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Nilbux --
           
           
          It may or may not have been an objection, but it certainly was not accurate.  The returns were yours, only you did not complete them.  The IRS claims authority to complete a return for non-filers and treat the returns as if they were completed by you.  This authority is based (on the surface) on Section 6020(b) of the IR Code [26 USC, 6020(b)].  The judge took the word of the IRS over you and your "objections" were worthless. 
           
          It would have been more effective to point out that the IR Manual specifically allows for ONLY certain business returns to be completed under the authority of Section 6020(b), and not the Form 1040.  The IRS regularly threatens non-filers with completing a return for them.  This threat is totally empty, but ONLY if you can refute its authority with the correct references.
           

          Yours in freedom,

          Dave Miner
          www.FreedomSite.net

           
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
          Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 1:34 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] trial by jury

          I denied that the returns were mine.
          is thst not an objection?

        • Nilbux@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/4/2004 8:57:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Maybe so, but the subject was state taxes that we are required to file IF we were required to
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/4/2004 8:57:50 PM Central Daylight Time, dminer@... writes:

            The IRS regularly threatens non-filers with completing a return for them. 

                Maybe so, but the subject was state taxes that we are required to file
                IF we were required to file federal AND if we have a Missouri adjusted
                gross income of $1200 or more.  No evidence was submitted to show
                that I was required to file federal and the $1200 figure must come from
                federal returns.  That prosecutor got testimony from state witness in
                my criminal trial thatthere were no federal returs filed.

                As for IRS "completing a return for them" and judges entering a plea for
                them who don't plea, when judge in criminal trial said he would enter a
                plea for me, I told him he was not entering a plea for me, he was entering
                the plea for the state.  Now, I do not know how strong that was but I do
                know that the case was dismissed when I refused a plea bargain WITH
                NO JAIL TIME.

                 Did I accomplish anything in telling the judge that he was not entering a
                 plea for me? 
            Does anyone think I accomplished anything with those
                 words?  Something got my dismissal !  Maybe it was the Motion to
                 Dismiss that my paralegal prepared and I wanted my lawyer to present
                 but he told me to present it with him present?  The judge quickly denied
                 the Motion as he had to, no matter what. He then asked me if my lawyer
                 had offered me a plea bargain.  I said yes and shut my mouth.  He then
                 told me that I was facing 20 years (extortion on his part). I stared at him
                 and 2 months later the prosecutor asked for a dismissal.

                  Tell me, somone, did I accomplish anything in telling the judge that
                   he was not entering a plea for me?  I do know that if I had said no-
                   thing, silence gives consent and the judge uttered those words in my
                   first trial that was remanded for many errors including the judge im-
                   posing sentence that the jury was supposed to impose 6 weeks earlier.
                   I would have really been stupid to let his threat of 20 years worry me!
                   That sentence was 4 months and my lawyer told him that he had no
                   authority. I had no lawyer when I was tried though I meant to.
          • David L. Miner
            Nilbux -- You said: when judge in criminal trial said he would enter a plea for me, I told him he was not entering a plea for me, he was entering the plea for
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Nilbux --
               
              You said: "when judge in criminal trial said he would enter a plea for me, I told him he was not entering a plea for me, he was entering the plea for the state.  Now, I do not know how strong that was but I do know that the case was dismissed when I refused a plea bargain WITH NO JAIL TIME."
               
              The following happened 15-20 years ago.  A friend of mine that knows a whole lot more about court procedure than I ever expect to learn was representing himself in a federal income tax non-filing case, and refused to make a plea.  Instead, he was challenging subject matter jurisdiction.  My friend made a number of statements along the line that his presence should not be construed as any form of submission to the jurisdiction of the court and stuff like that, which I did not understand at the time.  The judge entered a plea of not guilty for my friend, who then responded something like, "Your Honor, you would know much more about this than I would, but I was under the impression that no one could enter a plea for me but my lawyer.  If I am correct, then this would mean that you are temporarily acting as my attorney.  I was under the impression that you cannot be my judge and practice law at the same time.  Since you are acting as my attorney, then shouldn't you dismiss this case or turn it over to another judge?"  The judge called up the other attorney and spoke quietly with him for about 2 minutes, then without any explanation he dismissed the case.
               

              Yours in freedom,

              Dave Miner
              www.FreedomSite.net

               
            • David L. Miner
              Nilbux -- I did not see that statement. If this is so, then my comments did not apply. Sorry. Dave Miner ... From: Nilbux@aol.com [mailto:Nilbux@aol.com]
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Nilbux --
                 
                I did not see that statement.  If this is so, then my comments did not apply.  Sorry.
                 
                Dave Miner
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
                Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 11:29 PM
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com; balderdash88@...
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] trial by jury


                    Maybe so, but the subject was state taxes that we are required to file
                    IF we were required to file federal AND if we have a Missouri adjusted
                    gross income of $1200 or more. 
              • Don Schwarz
                Yes, only the Defendant can plead, if they believe the law cited was constitutional, that the court has jurisdiction, and it is the proper venue. You can also
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, only the Defendant can plead, if they believe the law
                  cited was constitutional, that the court has jurisdiction, and it
                  is the proper venue.

                  You can also plead Nul Tiel Record. Then the people bringing the charges have
                  to prove the charges apply to you.

                  Challenge jurisdiction of the court or those charging you.

                  Are the charges, personum of in rem? Are they against
                  you or a thing?

                  also remember SPECIAL and not general appearance before the court.





                  At 12:36 AM 7/5/04 -0400, you wrote:
                  >Nilbux --
                  >
                  >You said: "when judge in criminal trial said he would enter a plea for me,
                  >I told him he was not entering a plea for me, he was entering the plea for
                  >the state. Now, I do not know how strong that was but I do know that the
                • Gary Cummings
                  I have heard repeatedly of special and general appearances. Can someone explain to us what exactly they are and how are they significant? Thank you --glc
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have heard repeatedly of 'special' and 'general' appearances. Can someone explain to us what exactly they are and how are they significant? Thank you  --glc

                    Don Schwarz <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:

                    Yes, only the Defendant can plead, if they believe the law
                    cited was constitutional, that the court has jurisdiction, and it
                    is the proper venue.

                    You can also plead Nul Tiel Record. Then the people bringing the charges have
                    to prove the charges apply to you.

                    Challenge jurisdiction of the court or those charging you.

                    Are the charges, personum of in rem? Are they against
                    you or a thing?

                    also remember SPECIAL and not general appearance before the court.






                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
                  • Occupant Family
                    Greetings glc, Try this in response to your question on special appearance & general appearance : Where defendant appears in the action only to object that
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings glc,
                       
                      Try this in response to your question on "special appearance"
                      & "general appearance":
                       

                               Where defendant appears in the action only to object that court has no

                      jurisdiction over him, that is, where he enters a special appearance, court does

                      not acquire jurisdiction over him because of his appearance, except to decide

                      the question so raised, but if court determines that it has jurisdiction over him,

                      even though that determination is erroneous on the facts, or on the law,

                      determination is res judicata between the parties under general principle

                      precluding parties from relitigating a matter determined by court after a fair

                      opportunity has been afforded to them to litigate the matter. 

                      Johnson v. Haley (1959) 98 N.W.2d 555, 357 Mich. 411.

                       

                      Special Appearance is codified in California in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 418.10 .

                      One can use Special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction, and even if it's denied,

                      you'll give the system a workout, and extend your time to plead by several weeks, even months.

                      Some may call it a "poison pill" that those wanting to mess with your rights have to swallow

                      before they can acquire jurisdiction over you.. Most other State's court rules also address it!

                       

                      Can it would apply to criminal proceedings?

                       

                      It may be CIVIL Code, but it should still apply to criminal proceedings if there is nothing regulating Special Appearance in Penal Code. Case in point is Disqualification of Judges. There is absolutely nothing about disqualifying a judge in Penal code, but disqualifying a judge is detailed in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP 170.1-170.6) and used in traffic courts. Plus the court's jurisdiction over your person either exists, or doesn't, regardless of whether the case is civil or criminal.

                       

                      And because court may or may not have jurisdiction over your person, you have a RIGHT to appear specially (thus challenging the court's jurisdiction), even if the State didn't codify the process of such appearance. It's like your right against unreasonable searches. You have that right (as guaranteed by the Constitution), regardless of whether the State defines "unreasonable search" in their codes, or not.  Special Appearance operates on premise that you have a right not to be subjected to jurisdiction which you are NOT subject of.

                       

                      Here are few cites as to jurisdiction:

                      (a) "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

                      (b) "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. "Hagens v.Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

                      (c) "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.

                      (d) "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."

                      Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b).

                      (e) "The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof." Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 (d).

                      (f) "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910.

                       

                      ==========================================================

                      511 N.W.2d 896, 203 Mich.App. 178, Penny v. ABA Pharmaceutical Co., (Mich.App. 1993)

                       

                      203 Mich.App. 178

                       

                      Nancy PENNY

                      v.

                      ABA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY (On Remand).

                       

                      Docket No. 139328.

                      Court of Appeals of Michigan.

                      Submitted Feb. 2, 1993, at Detroit.

                      Decided Dec. 29, 1993, at 9:20 a.m.

                      Released for Publication March 4, 1994.

                       

                                      Patient brought products liability claim against various manufacturers of diethylstilbestrol (DES).  The Circuit Court, Wayne County, James E. Mies, J., granted summary disposition for all manufacturers and appeal was taken.  The Court of Appeals held that:  (1) manufacturer waived right to assert failure of service by participating in case;  (2) manufacturer was equitably estopped from asserting failure of service;  and (3) as that manufacturer was still before

                      court, summary judgment could not be granted to other manufacturers on grounds that patient had not brought before court all possible manufacturers of DES which had allegedly caused her harm.

                       

                                      Reversed.

                       

                      1.                APPEARANCE k19(1)

                                      31     ----

                                      31k16    Jurisdiction Acquired

                                      31k19      Of the Person

                                      31k19(1)     In general.

                       

                                      [See headnote text below]

                       

                      1.                APPEARANCE k24(5)

                                      31     ----

                                      31k21    Waiver of Objections

                                      31k24      Defects in Process or Service

                                      31k24(5)     Defects in service in general.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Party who makes general appearance and contests cause of action on merits submits to court's jurisdiction and waives service of process objections.

                       

                      2.                APPEARANCE k9(1)

                                      31     ----

                                      31k7     Proceedings Constituting Appearance

                                      31k9       General or Special Appearance

                                      31k9(1)      In general.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Any action on part of defendant that recognizes pending proceedings, with exception of objecting to court's jurisdiction, will constitute general appearance.

                       

                      3.                APPEARANCE k8(1)

                                      31     ----

                                      31k7     Proceedings Constituting Appearance

                                      31k8       In General

                                      31k8(1)      In general.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      In order to render an act adequate to support inference that party has made an appearance there must be knowledge of pending proceedings and an intent to appear.

                       

                      4.                PARTIES k65(1)

                                      287    ----

                                      287IV    New Parties and Change of Parties

                                      287k65     Striking Out Parties

                                      287k65(1)    In general.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Party that submits to court's jurisdiction may not be dismissed for not having received service of process.  MCR 2.102(E)(2).

                       

                      5.                APPEARANCE k24(6)

                                      31     ----

                                      31k21    Waiver of Objections

                                      31k24      Defects in Process or Service

                                      31k24(6)     Filing or service of complaint or declaration.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Defendant had waived objection to plaintiff's failure to serve process, by appearing in proceeding, including asking court for additional time in which to answer interrogatories.  MCR 2.102(E).

                       

                      6.                ESTOPPEL k52.15

                                      156    ----

                                      156III   Equitable Estoppel

                                      156III(A)  Nature and Essentials in General

                                      156k52.15    Essential elements.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Equitable estoppel arises when party, by representations, admissions, or silence, intentionally or negligently induces another party to believe certain facts, other party justifiably relies on belief, and other party would be subject to prejudice if first party was permitted to deny facts upon which second party relied.

                       

                      7.                PROCESS k166

                                      313    ----

                                      313III   Defects, Objections, and Amendment

                                      313k166    Waiver of defects and objections.

                       

                      Mich.App. 1993.

                                      Defendant was estopped to deny that it had not been served with process; counsel for defendant was active in committee of defendants in multi-tort case, and had participated in various motions, and there were indications that counsel for defendant had deliberately waited until statute of limitations period had run to inform plaintiff of failure of service.

                       

                                      [203 Mich.App. 179] Barr & Associates by Charles J. Barr, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

                       

                                      Kohl, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Clark & Hampton by John Mitchell, Farmington Hills, for Wyeth Laboratories.

                       

                                      Cheatham & Acker, P.C. by William E. Osantowski, West Bloomfield, for Kremers-Urban Co.

                       

                                      DeMoss & Thompson by Peggy King Scully, Mt. Clemens, for Approved Pharmaceutical Corp.

                       

                                      Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman[203 Mich.App. 180]  by Kathleen A. Lang, Detroit, and Shook, Hardy & Bacon by Laurel J. Harbour and Michelle R. Mangrum, Kansas City, MO, for Eli Lilly & Co.

                       

                                      Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. by Robert G. Kamenec, Detroit, for E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.

                       

                                      Before WAHLS, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and CONNOR, JJ.

                       

                      ON REMAND

                       

                                      PER CURIAM.

                       

                                      In this products liability case, plaintiff alleges that she was injured as a result of in utero exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES).  Plaintiff's mother was prescribed DES to prevent a spontaneous abortion.  Because of her

                      inability to isolate the drug manufacturer of the product ingested, plaintiff based her claim on the alternative liability theory set forth in Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 418 Mich. 311, 329-331, 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984), reh. den. 419 Mich. 1201 (1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 833, 105 S.Ct. 123, 83 L.Ed.2d 65 (1984).  Under that theory, plaintiff was required to bring before the court all the manufacturers who may have manufactured the drug.  On January 28, 1987, plaintiff filed suit against numerous manufacturers of DES.

                       

                                      Subsequently, the trial court entered an order extending until January 27, 1988, the time in which to serve all defendants.  Apparently, defendant E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., was never served with a summons and complaint in this

                      case. (FN1)  On February 25, 1988, the Wayne County Clerk entered an order pursuant to MCR 2.102(E) dismissing [203 Mich.App. 181] Squibb from the case for failure of service.  Evidently, plaintiff did not become aware of this

                      order of dismissal until August 12, 1988, when defendant Eli Lilly & Company filed a motion for summary disposition based upon the clerk's order of Squibb's dismissal from this matter.  The statute of limitations barred suit against

                      Squibb in March 1988. (FN2)

                       

                                      On November 3, 1989, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of all defendants because plaintiff, in failing to serve the summons and complaint upon Squibb, failed to bring before the court all the actors who may have

                      caused her injury as required by Abel, supra.

                       

                                      Following this Court's denial of plaintiff's application for delayed appeal, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted.  437 Mich. 929, 467 N.W.2d 29  (1991).

                       

                                      The sole issue for our consideration is whether the trial court properly granted defendants' motion for summary disposition in this matter.

                       

                                      Plaintiff first argues that Squibb submitted to the court's jurisdiction by appearing in this matter, and thereby waived any defense based on lack of service of process.  We agree.

                       

                                      [1][2][3][4] A party who enters a general appearance and contests a cause of action on the merits submits to the court's jurisdiction and waives service of process objections.  In re Slis, 144 Mich.App. 678, 683, 375 N.W.2d 788 (1985).  Generally, any action on the part of a defendant that recognizes the pending proceedings, with the exception of objecting to the [203 Mich.App. 182] court's jurisdiction, will constitute a general appearance.  Only two requirements must be met to render an act adequate to support the inference that there is an appearance:  (1) knowledge of the pending proceedings and (2) an intent to appear.  Ragnone v. Wirsing, 141 Mich.App. 263, 265, 367 N.W.2d 369 (1985).  A party that submits to the court's jurisdiction may not be dismissed for not having received service of process.  MCR 2.102(E)(2).

                       

                                      [5] We find that Squibb had knowledge of the pending proceedings and an intention to appear in this matter.  Squibb's attorney was appointed to the steering committee set up in this matter to facilitate all defendants' defenses

                      and for ease of communication between the parties.  In addition to attending steering committee meetings, Squibb's attorney was also present and participated in  *898  specifically allocated "DES case motion days" set by the

                      trial court.  Furthermore, on January 8, 1988, Squibb's counsel sent a letter to plaintiff's counsel, referencing this matter, indicating that a true copy of the court's order granting a motion for extension of time within which to answer interrogatories was enclosed.  Squibb was aware that plaintiff had filed this action against it, and it retained attorneys who appeared and participated.  Squibb's actions constituted a general appearance.  Ragnone, supra.   Under these circumstances, Squibb may not raise as a defense the lack of service of process.  In re Slis, supra.   Squibb submitted to the court's jurisdiction, and, therefore, summary disposition was improper.

                       

                                      As an alternative ground for reversal, plaintiff argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents Squibb from raising a defense based on lack of service of process or on the statute of limitations.  We agree that the

                      doctrine of equitable [203 Mich.App. 183] estoppel also mandates reversal of the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition.

                       

                                      [6] The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on broad principles of justice.  It is applicable to actions at law and in equity.  In re Prichard Estate, 169 Mich.App. 140, 425 N.W.2d 744 (1988).  Estoppel arises where a party, by

                      representations, admissions, or silence, intentionally or negligently induces another party to believe certain facts.  The other party must not only have justifiably relied on this belief, but also must be subject to prejudice if the

                      first party is permitted to deny the facts upon which the second party relied.  Schepke v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 186 Mich.App. 532, 534-535, 464 N.W.2d 713 (1990).

                       

                                      [7] It is clear that even assuming Squibb was not served with a summons and complaint in this matter, it was aware of the pendency of the lawsuit against it and active in its defense.  Squibb's attorney was appointed to the steering committee set up in this matter to facilitate all defendants' defenses and for ease of communication between the par

                      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                    • Cyril Grosse
                      Does anyone have a clear-cut explanation of Special Appearance really is and how it differs from General Appearance and how/if this affects one s standing
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Does anyone have a clear-cut explanation of "Special Appearance" really
                        is and how it differs from "General Appearance" and how/if this affects
                        one's standing in a court of law?

                        Thanks

                        -Cyril

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Don Schwarz [mailto:vigilespaladin@...]
                        Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:08 AM
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] trial by jury


                        Yes, only the Defendant can plead, if they believe the law
                        cited was constitutional, that the court has jurisdiction, and it
                        is the proper venue.

                        You can also plead Nul Tiel Record. Then the people bringing the charges
                        have
                        to prove the charges apply to you.

                        Challenge jurisdiction of the court or those charging you.

                        Are the charges, personum of in rem? Are they against
                        you or a thing?

                        also remember SPECIAL and not general appearance before the court.
                      • Don Schwarz
                        Occupant family, thank you for this. Seems I could not find any of my citations per special appearance . You want to limit their jurisdiction as much as
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Occupant family,

                          thank you for this.

                          Seems I could not find any of my citations per "special appearance".

                          You want to limit their jurisdiction as much as possible.

                          I have even taken to using the word "special" on Motions
                          I file.



                          Here is a Mass usage of the term -----------------------------



                          CITE: 351 Mass. 678 HERBERT MCLAUGHLIN & others vs. ROCKLAND ZONING
                          BOARD OF APPEALS & another
                          n October 28,
                          1964, Blanchard filed a special appearance

                          (681)

                           "without waiving any rights and without submitting to the jurisdiction of
                          the Court," and appeared solely for the "purpose of challenging the jurisdiction"
                          on the following grounds: (1) the bill did not contain the names and addresses
                          of the members of the board of appeals; (2) Blanchard was not named as a party;
                          and (3) the affidavit was defective in not asserting notice to him, "nor did he
                          receive a copy of the bill.



                          At 09:39 AM 7/6/04 -0400, you wrote:
                          Greetings glc,
                           
                          Try this in response to your question on "special appearance"
                          & "general appearance":
                           

                                   Where defendant appears in the action only to object that court has no

                          jurisdiction over him, that is, where he enters a special appearance, court does

                          not acquire jurisdiction over him because of his appearance, except to decide

                          the question so raised, but if court determines that it has jurisdiction over him,

                          even though that determination is erroneous on the facts, or on the law,

                          determination is res judicata between the parties under general principle

                          precluding parties from relitigating a matter determined by court after a fair

                          opportunity has been afforded to them to litigate the matter. 

                          Johnson v. Haley (1959) 98 N.W.2d 555, 357 Mich. 411.

                           

                          Special Appearance is codified in California in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 418.10 .

                          One can use Special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction, and even if it's denied,

                          you'll give the system a workout, and extend your time to plead by several weeks, even months.

                          Some may call it a "poison pill" that those wanting to mess with your rights have to swallow

                          before they can acquire jurisdiction over you.. Most other State's court rules also address it!

                           <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

                          Can it would apply to criminal proceedings?

                           =============================================================================
                        • jimpk
                          Hello Cyril, See attachment Tuesday, July 6, 2004, 10:03:37 AM, you wrote: CG Does anyone have a clear-cut explanation of Special Appearance really CG is
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 6, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Cyril,

                            See attachment

                            Tuesday, July 6, 2004, 10:03:37 AM, you wrote:



                            CG> Does anyone have a clear-cut explanation of "Special Appearance" really
                            CG> is and how it differs from "General Appearance" and how/if this affects
                            CG> one's standing in a court of law?

                            CG> Thanks

                            CG> -Cyril

                            CG> -----Original Message-----
                            CG> From: Don Schwarz [mailto:vigilespaladin@...]
                            CG> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:08 AM
                            CG> To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            CG> Subject: [tips_and_tricks] trial by jury


                            CG> Yes, only the Defendant can plead, if they believe the law
                            CG> cited was constitutional, that the court has jurisdiction, and it
                            CG> is the proper venue.

                            CG> You can also plead Nul Tiel Record. Then the people bringing the charges
                            CG> have
                            CG> to prove the charges apply to you.

                            CG> Challenge jurisdiction of the court or those charging you.

                            CG> Are the charges, personum of in rem? Are they against
                            CG> you or a thing?

                            CG> also remember SPECIAL and not general appearance before the court.









                            CG> Yahoo! Groups Links







                            --
                            Best regards,
                            jimpk mailto:jimpk@...
                          • WW011@aol.com
                            In a message dated 7/4/04 7:34:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nilbux@aol.com writes: Not only should prosecutor be fired, but the judge should be too!! CCP 170.6
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jul 31, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 7/4/04 7:34:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nilbux@...
                              writes:

                              Not only should prosecutor be fired, but the judge should be too!!
                              CCP 170.6 (Peremptory Challenge)

                              Perhaps even reserve rights to make a federal case out of it?
                              (Jennings vs Caddo), Parish School Board 531 F2d 1331
                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... Making Motions necessarily grants the jurisdiction to grant them. Motions are general appearances . Demands are special. Demands grant no jurisdiction,
                              Message 14 of 15 , Sep 8, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Don Schwarz wrote:

                                > You want to limit their jurisdiction as much as possible.
                                >
                                > I have even taken to using the word "special" on Motions
                                > I file.
                                >

                                Making "Motions" necessarily grants the jurisdiction to grant them.
                                Motions are "general appearances".

                                Demands are special. Demands grant no jurisdiction, indeed, many deny
                                jurisdiction.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.