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

Can you prove court order needs to have affixed signatures & seal?

Expand Messages
  • fastmuscleman
    Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed signatures & seal? Are you aware that all orders issuing from Federal Courts are not signed or have the seal
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed signatures & seal?

      Are you aware that all orders issuing from Federal Courts are not
      signed or have the seal of the court?
      However the court requires us to sign documents & then have the
      notarized in order to be valid!
      If you think this is nonsense, then how would you verify if the
      actual judges heard & decided your case?
      How would you know if the order was not based upon FRAUD?

      Please try "Words and Phrases" in the law library and while you are
      looking & check out US code section 1 and 28 annotated to see if you
      can find any such info proving this as I was informed that none of
      the court orders are final unless they meet this procedural
      requirement.

      However I cannot expose this fraud if I cannot support my facts

      Please email me if you have any success so that I can use this as a
      new issue in my petition for rehearing should my petition for review
      be denied.
    • John Wilde
      The one you may receive does not necessarily have to be signed. However, you will find that the original in the record will be. g day John Wilde
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        The one you may receive does not necessarily have to be signed.
        However, you will find that the original in the record will be.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        fastmuscleman wrote:

        >
        >Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed signatures & seal?
        >
        >Are you aware that all orders issuing from Federal Courts are not
        >signed or have the seal of the court?
        >However the court requires us to sign documents & then have the
        >notarized in order to be valid!
        >If you think this is nonsense, then how would you verify if the
        >actual judges heard & decided your case?
        >How would you know if the order was not based upon FRAUD?
        >
        >
      • pilipo souza
        Worst yet, the unsigned order does not condone an order. Therefore there can not be any fraud. Fraud can only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 23, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Worst yet, the unsigned order does not condone an
          order. Therefore there can not be any fraud. Fraud can

          only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto
          jurisdiction does not produce fraud. That is why they
          created two of a kind, two constitutions, two USA, two
          citizens. Just like keeping two sets of bookkeeping,
          one for shoe, one for go.
          Pilipo
          --- fastmuscleman <m.schrader1@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed
          > signatures & seal?
          >
        • Dessie Andrews
          Buried somewhere in your codes, you should be able to find something that deals with signing of an order. ... From: pilipo souza [mailto:pilipohale@yahoo.com]
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 24, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Buried somewhere in your codes, you should be able to find something that
            deals with signing of an order.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: pilipo souza [mailto:pilipohale@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:25 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Can you prove court order needs to have
            affixed signatures & seal?



            Worst yet, the unsigned order does not condone an
            order. Therefore there can not be any fraud. Fraud can

            only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto
            jurisdiction does not produce fraud. That is why they
            created two of a kind, two constitutions, two USA, two
            citizens. Just like keeping two sets of bookkeeping,
            one for shoe, one for go.
            Pilipo
            --- fastmuscleman <m.schrader1@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed
            > signatures & seal?
            >







            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Dessie Andrews
            Not true, John. Here in Texas, in Austin, in the 3rd court of appeals, it is the custom and practice not to sign opinions. The one in the file is not signed,
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 24, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Not true, John. Here in Texas, in Austin, in the 3rd court of appeals, it
              is the custom and practice not to sign opinions. The one in the file is not
              signed, either. I have sued an appellate judge for just that, denying me
              due process, as I couldn't appeal an unsigned order. The Texas Supreme
              Court said they had no jurisdiction and refused my writ of mandamus to make
              the judge sign the order so it could be appealed. Sort of a cute game they
              play here. I currently have a default judgment against the appellate judge,
              because she felt, in her imperious position, that she didn't have to answer
              the suit. Oops.

              -----Original Message-----
              From: John Wilde [mailto:jpwilde@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:22 PM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Can you prove court order needs to have
              affixed signatures & seal?



              The one you may receive does not necessarily have to be signed.
              However, you will find that the original in the record will be.

              g'day
              John Wilde

              fastmuscleman wrote:

              >
              >Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed signatures & seal?
              >
              >Are you aware that all orders issuing from Federal Courts are not
              >signed or have the seal of the court?
              >However the court requires us to sign documents & then have the
              >notarized in order to be valid!
              >If you think this is nonsense, then how would you verify if the
              >actual judges heard & decided your case?
              >How would you know if the order was not based upon FRAUD?
              >
              >








              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Skye Walker
              Pilipo said, Fraud can only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto jurisdiction does not produce fraud. Is that because fraud only refers to an injury to
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Pilipo said, "Fraud can only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto jurisdiction does not produce fraud. "

                Is that because fraud only refers to an injury to another (real hu-man) and since de facto is fiction court, it is only  our reflection in the mirror and not the real hu-man, and because corporations cannot be injured? 

                Or what was your meaning of that statement?

                It never dawned on me about the fraud issue in a de facto jurisdiction but it makes perfect sense to me now.  That is why our petitions to vacate a void judgment for Fraud are ignored in court.  So, how do we get  de jure jurisdiction--Article III courts or private remedies?

                FRAUD: Federal  Reserve Accounting Unit Dollars

                Skye

                 



                pilipo souza <pilipohale@...> wrote:

                Worst yet, the unsigned order does not condone an
                order. Therefore there can not be any fraud. Fraud can

                only exist in dejure jurisdiction. A de facto
                jurisdiction does not produce fraud. That is why they
                created two of a kind, two constitutions, two USA, two
                citizens. Just like keeping two sets of bookkeeping,
                one for shoe, one for go.
                Pilipo
                --- fastmuscleman <m.schrader1@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Can you prove order of court needs to have affixed
                > signatures & seal?
                >





                Do you Yahoo!?
                The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free!

              • John Wilde
                The question did not involve appeals court decisions. The question involved trial courts and orders and judgments issued from there. In Arizona published
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 25, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  The question did not involve appeals court decisions. The question
                  involved trial courts and orders and judgments issued from there. In
                  Arizona published opinions must be signed, unpublished opinions don't.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  Dessie Andrews wrote:

                  >Not true, John. Here in Texas, in Austin, in the 3rd court of appeals, it
                  >is the custom and practice not to sign opinions. The one in the file is not
                  >signed, either. I have sued an appellate judge for just that, denying me
                  >due process, as I couldn't appeal an unsigned order. The Texas Supreme
                  >Court said they had no jurisdiction and refused my writ of mandamus to make
                  >the judge sign the order so it could be appealed. Sort of a cute game they
                  >play here. I currently have a default judgment against the appellate judge,
                  >because she felt, in her imperious position, that she didn't have to answer
                  >the suit. Oops.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.