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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Help on having to pay to defend myself

Expand Messages
  • Cyril Grosse
    Have you requested the creditor verify the alleged debt? Cyril Grosse Cyril@sprynet.com
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 7 , Jan 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 7 , Jan 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 7 , Jan 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment

            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 5 of 7 , Jan 20, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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.