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

Re: Fraud, Silence, Estoppel

Expand Messages
  • tthor.geo
    Generally, you can combine anything [having legal significance] you want into a Memorandum of Points and Authorities [it s basically an argument; it SUPPORTS a
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Generally, you can combine anything [having legal significance] you
      want into a Memorandum of Points and Authorities [it's basically an
      argument; it SUPPORTS a Complaint or Cross-Complaint or
      Counter-Complaint..

      The problem is determining, for yourself, what legal precedents are
      relevant to your argument and which are not.

      For the first case to support a "cause of action", you would have to
      show what FACTS constitute the duty to speak. "Cause of action" goes
      in a Complaint, not in a Memorandum.

      For the second case, I think the citation is "The Anistad".

      Using bogus or erroneous citations may get your entire Memorandum
      discarded and may get you sanctioned.

      "Russ" <russ@d...> wrote:
      >
      > Is there any reason why we can't combine court decisions like:
      >
      > Silence is a fraud, where there is a legal or moral duty to speak,
      > or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
      > misleading per U.S. v. Tweel.
      >
      > And
      >
      > fraud will vitiate even the most solumn transactions and an asserted
      > title to property, founded upon it, is utterly void. US v The
      > Aimsted, 15 US 518 at 594, (1841)
      >
      > For example: If a state agency is non-responsive to my numerous
      > honest inquires as to their authority to act and the "agent" or
      > agency refuses to respond even to the point of defaulting them,
      > (recorded affidavit into the county records), doesn't it stand to
      > reason that their silence is fraud, activates estoppel, and
      > everything they do and have done would be null and void?
      >
      > Is my thinking clear on this?
      >
      > Any input would be appreciated.
    • Duboys.One@verizon.net
      A New Yorker is planning to test that theory, pro se, in trying to vacate a judgment which was reached not only by fraud, but without statutory jurisdiction.
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        A New Yorker is planning to test that theory, pro se,  in trying to vacate a judgment  which was reached not only by fraud, but without statutory jurisdiction.  Also, the judge had not filed a proper oath or undertaking; neither did his appointed fiduciary (a former judge)..

        Her case involved the unlawful taking of real property.  She wasted several years in federal court, afraid to go back to state court to use the state  vacate motion similar to Fed R.60). 

        Now, based on a publicized second "censure" of the judge, and because he is retiring imminently rather than face further discipline, she has finally decided to try it.  She is going pro se, after several bad experiences with lawyers colluding with judges.

        Any help or suggestions out there, while she is collecting the facts and docs?

        I have also suggested that she search for other victims of the same judge so that they can work together.  We are already aware of one, but she is having trouble putting her case together.

        In NY, the clerks' entries are so sparse that you cannot identify what they relate to without matching up to every document in your possession and in the court file, and then setting up your own docket list to show filing omissions, if any.

        Any help or suggestions?

        Lori D.


        Russ wrote:

        Is there any reason why we can't combine court decisions like:

        Silence is a fraud, where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading per U.S. v. Tweel.

        And

        fraud will vitiate even the most solumn transactions and an asserted title to property, founded upon it, is utterly void. US v The Aimsted [sic], 15 US 518 at 594, (1841)

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.