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

Petition - Defined

Expand Messages
  • Ed
    Under the British System of Laws, as practice in the Ancien Regime, a Petition was a prayer to those believed given power from God. Under the American
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 30, 2004
      Under the British System of Laws, as practice in the Ancien Regime, a
      'Petition' was a 'prayer' to those believed given power from God.

      Under the American System of Laws, established upon abolishing the power of
      the Ancien Regime in this Land, a 'Petititon' is a DEMAND for administration
      of the Law to satisfy our grievance, to secure Redress and Remedy for
      violations of Rights and Laws that Protect these Rights given to THE PEOPLE
      from God, secured by Constitution binding the Judge and all others.

      Whimps and Slaves go into Court and beg, plead, pray to a Father Figure to
      show mercy. Free People go into Court and DEMAND the Public Servant, holding
      an Office of Public Trust, under Oath to administer our Constitution and
      Laws impartially, perform their duty. The Defendant is allowed 'due process
      of law', an opportunity for hearing, to show the Law and Facts do not
      entitled the Petitioner (Plaintiff) to the Redress or Remedy demanded.

      Ed
      www.informed.org
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
    • krimson3
      Any ideas on how I can take this any further? This judge is being a total idiot and tyrant. This is a case where I am being sued by Citibank and I do not have
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 31, 2004
        Message
        Any ideas on how I can take this any further? This judge is being a total idiot and tyrant.
         
        This is a case where I am being sued by Citibank and I do not have the money they say I have to pay.
         
        On the form enclosed, the judge scribbled (the best that I can read) Denied without hering, Petitioner is not a prisoner" code 31-3220a is not applicable. In order to decide if Mr Darby is indigent, I need specific asset valuation along with specific ???? (can't read this part)  I never used that code to support my demand... the judge just took it out of thin air... I used 31-3220 as shown below. 
         
        The interesting thing is that I used this affidavit of financial condition (shown at the end of the paper) in my wells fargo case and it was accepted and waiver granted. This judge has been a real pain from the beginning causing as much problems as possible in stopping me from defending myself.
         
        I saw some code somewhere that saud that I could have her replaced by another judge... what do you think on that?
         
        I will not put my financial record into public records for all to see, and I don't see where that court has any right to force me on this pretense.
         
        Can I take this issue to the next higher court?  How can I reply to this and force her to use the correct code as I stated? 
         
        Can I somehow subpena the code for challanging the legality of having to pay to defend myself?
         
        Gary 
         
         TITLE  31
                                   COUNTIES AND COUNTY LAW
                                          CHAPTER 32  FEES

            31-3220.  INABILITY TO PAY FEES -- DEFINITIONS -- AFFIDAVIT. (1) For
        purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
            (a)  "Action" means any civil suit, action, proceeding or appeal of any
            such action, including a habeas corpus action, but excluding proceedings
            brought pursuant to chapter 49, title 19, Idaho Code.
            (b)  "Court" means the district court (including its magistrates
            division), the court of appeals of Idaho or the supreme court of Idaho.
            (c)  "Frivolous" means a claim which has no arguable basis in law or fact,
            or is substantially similar to a previous claim that has been dismissed
            with prejudice or is barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.
            (d)  "Indigent" means a person who is not a prisoner, as defined in
            section 31-3220A, Idaho Code, and who is found by the court to be unable
            to pay fees, costs or give security for the purpose of prepayment of fees,
            costs or security in a civil action.
            (e)  "Malicious" means a claim which appears to be intended solely to
            harass the party.
            (2)  The court may authorize the commencement or defense of any action
        without prepayment of fees, costs or security, by any indigent person not a
        prisoner, providing:
            (a)  The person files an affidavit that he is indigent as provided in
            subsection (3) of this section, and unable to pay fees, costs or give
            security; and
            (b)  The court finds, after informal inquiry, that the person is indigent
            for the purpose of prepayment of fees, costs or security.
            (3)  The affidavit shall contain complete information as to:
            (a)  The person's identity;
            (b)  The nature and amount of his income;
            (c)  His spouse's income;
            (d)  The real and personal property owned;
            (e)  His cash or checking accounts;
            (f)  His dependents;
            (g)  His debts;
            (h)  His monthly expenses;
            (i)  The nature of the action;
            (j)  The affiant's belief that he is entitled to redress.
        The affidavit shall also contain the following statements: "I am unable to pay
        the court costs. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true
        and correct." The affidavit shall be sworn as required by law.
      • Cyril Grosse
        Have you requested the creditor verify the alleged debt? Cyril Grosse Cyril@sprynet.com
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 1, 2005
          Message

          Have you requested the creditor verify the alleged debt?

           

          Cyril Grosse

          Cyril@...

          ________________________________________________________________

          "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." -- Dresden James


          From: krimson3 [mailto:krimson3@...]
          Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 4:08 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Help on having to pay to defend myself

           

          Any ideas on how I can take this any further? This judge is being a total idiot and tyrant.

           

          This is a case where I am being sued by Citibank and I do not have the money they say I have to pay.

           

          On the form enclosed, the judge scribbled (the best that I can read) Denied without hering, Petitioner is not a prisoner" code 31-3220a is not applicable. In order to decide if Mr Darby is indigent, I need specific asset valuation along with specific ???? (can't read this part)  I never used that code to support my demand... the judge just took it out of thin air... I used 31-3220 as shown below. 

           

          The interesting thing is that I used this affidavit of financial condition (shown at the end of the paper) in my wells fargo case and it was accepted and waiver granted. This judge has been a real pain from the beginning causing as much problems as possible in stopping me from defending myself.

           

          I saw some code somewhere that saud that I could have her replaced by another judge... what do you think on that?

           

          I will not put my financial record into public records for all to see, and I don't see where that court has any right to force me on this pretense.

           

          Can I take this issue to the next higher court?  How can I reply to this and force her to use the correct code as I stated? 

           

          Can I somehow subpena the code for challanging the legality of having to pay to defend myself?

           

          Gary 

          •  .
        • krimson3
          Yes I did and of course the creditor did not reply. My question is how to fight the judge that is requiring me to buy or purchase access to the court (to
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 2, 2005
            Message

             
            Yes I did and of course the creditor did not reply. My question is how to fight the judge that is requiring me to buy or purchase access to the court (to defend myself) (by having to file a $40.00 filing fee...that I don't have) when the Idaho Constitution says that Justice is not for sale nor is it to be denied. Their answer is that I give full disclosure of all my financial conditions in gross detail and place myself at the mercy of the courts... I do not want to place myself at the mercy of the courts as if I were their subject, nor do I want to make all of my financial concerns open to the public by subjecting them to the Judges scruteny and thus public record!
             
            Can anybody help me with some Ideas... this is an act of taking back control of our courts!
             
            Gary
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Cyril Grosse [mailto:cyril@...]
            Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 4:21 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Help on having to pay to defend myself

            Have you requested the creditor verify the alleged debt?

             

          • WW011@aol.com
            Fire the Judge In California I believe its CCP 170.1 Might be Different code different state for PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 3, 2005
              Fire the Judge
              In California I believe its CCP 170.1
              Might be Different code different state for PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE
            • Cyril Grosse
              CCP 170.1 is for disqualification for cause. 170.6 is the peremptory challenge and can only be used once if my memory serves me correctly. Cyril Grosse
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 5, 2005

                CCP 170.1 is for disqualification for cause.  170.6 is the peremptory challenge and can only be used once if my memory serves me correctly.

                 

                Cyril Grosse

                Cyril@...

                ________________________________________________________________

                "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." -- Dresden James


                From: WW011@... [mailto:WW011@...]
                Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:00 AM
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Help on having to pay to defend myself

                 

                Fire the Judge
                In California I believe its CCP 170.1
                Might be Different code different state for PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE

              • Frog Farmer
                ... I think you meant peremptory . Called a peremptory challenge, this right may usually only be exercised once by a party in any given case, whereas a
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 20, 2005
                  On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:00 AM, WW011@... wrote:

                  > Fire the Judge
                  > In California I believe its CCP 170.1
                  > Might be Different code different state for PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE
                  >

                  I think you meant "peremptory". Called a peremptory challenge, this
                  right may usually only be exercised once by a party in any given case,
                  whereas a challenge for cause may be used whenever a cause arises. I
                  find it better to reserve my one and only peremptory challenge for when
                  no other cause is available.

                  California Constitution Article XX, section 3 trumps any statute.

                  I guess you didn't see my message regarding the lack of judges in
                  California, due to the above article.

                  It would be a mistake to attempt to fire an impersonator using either
                  challenge, since making the challenge assumes that the person to be
                  removed is indeed a judge. Why would you make a person a judge in your
                  eyes if they refused to take the required oath of office?

                  I do not find it advantageous to vest mere neighbors who are willing to
                  commit impersonation of an officer with the powers of the office they
                  are impersonating. Why would you?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.