It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

page: 20
153
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Also, JP Zodeaux, as you live in California and obviously fancy yourself as Chief Justice/ Supreme Interpreter of the Law by personal Decree:

becomingalawyerwithoutlawschool.blogspot.com...




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





The Los Angeles Municipal Code? Presumably you were given a small fine for operating without a licence. I can understand why you would be annoyed by that. I regret to say that I cannot find a published version of the LAMC available online freely, so I can't look up what the maximum fine is, but I imagine it would be fairly minimal, relatively speaking.


What a putz! It took me less than five minutes to find the Code and section:


Street Sale of Goods Prohibited. (Amended by Ord. No. 169,319, Eff. 2/18/94.) No person, except as otherwise permitted by this section, shall on any sidewalk or street offer for sale, solicit the sale of, announce by any means the availability of, or have in his or her possession, control or custody, whether upon his or her person or upon some other animate or inanimate object, any goods, wares or merchandise which the public may purchase at any time. This subsection shall not apply to the sale of poppies, badges and labels as defined by Military and Veterans Code Section 1800 on a parkway or sidewalk by persons bearing a valid information card issued pursuant to Article 4 of this chapter authorizing such person to do so.


www.amlegal.com...:lamc_ca

If you cannot even find a simple Municipal Code readily available on the internet, why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

Of course, you couldn't be bothered to look and instead presumed to lecture on the minimal fine that must come with it, and further assumed it was about licensing schemes. You really do enjoy making a fool of yourself, don't you?

I did not pay any fine, and did not even pay any court costs, because I challenged the jurisdiction of the legislation and the judge had no legal authority to anything other than dismiss the charges. Actually, he had the legal authority to strike the ordinance down as unconstitutional, but hadn't the balls to do so, so he just dismissed the charges.

Putz!

Edit to Add:

I can see that link I provide is broken. I will have to provide this link:

www.amlegal.com...

You will have to actually do a little work to find the section. Since you seem to ignorant to do this on your own, allow me to explain how you find it.


Please choose which code(s) you would like to view or search:

Charter and Administrative Code (Charter last amended by legislation effective April 1, 2009; Administrative Code last amended by legislation effective December 21, 2010)

Municipal Code (Last amended by legislation effective January 21, 2011)

Planning and Zoning (Chapter I of the Municipal Code) (Last amended by legislation effective January 2, 2011)


Click Municipal Code. Once there use the "quick search" engine and type in 42.00 (b) then go to the list of tables and click Section 42. Sigh.


edit on 14-3-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Evidently noone had told Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, lawyers, legal academics, jurists, senators, representatives, law students, police officers, law enforcement officials, government/ethics teachers, and citizens, who have all plainly been the subject of an extremely elaborate lie.


Exactly.


Congress does not need to receive approval from every single citizen of the United States for a law to be both effective and constitutional.


You are completely missing the point. If I stand up and state I do not consent to an act/statute that says "You cannot hop down the street on one foot wearing purple on Tuesday" then what? Are we not equal in the eyes of the law? Think about this...


Without government, we descend into anarchy. That is simply human nature. Legislatures are empowered to legislate on behalf of their people (even if they would not necessarily agree with the content of such legislation) for their common welfare, and so that they do not have to take matters into theri own hands.


Prove it? People and by extension society itself evolves, this is fact. How will we ever know we are able to deal with our own problems if we are constantly on a government leash? This is complete bull#, I lost a lot of professional respect for you with this asinine comment.


Once that consent is given, the only way to revoke it is by either replacing the government (election) or by removing that system of governance entirely (overthrow). You do not get to pick and choose what applies to you, because what benefits you may harm others, just as what harms others may benefit you.


More asinine comments. Are you for real? If you harm someone that is a CRIME. If you commit a crime you will be punished. If I wanna smoke pot all day and sleep with 5 hookers at a time that is my business. Where is the crime? If I want to grow 100 pounds of pot in my basement and sell it to my friends and neighbors, where is the crime? If I want to let fat chicks ride my disco stick for 15 hours a day @ 50 bucks a pop, how is that a crime?

Its only a crime if you believe (mistakenly) it is, or if you consent to it. You're a smart (Read: Stupid) guy you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here. You are just pretending you do not.

Sleeping lawyers frustrate me.

-Lightrule



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





You have not 'shown' anything, and you have not 'proved' any of your arguments. You have just asserted your belief that, because individual consent has not been asked of every citizen to every law, no such law can exist. That position is at odds with both reality and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, as well as various appellate courts across the United States.


It is jaw droppingly astounding to read your buffoonery! How many times do I have to tell you this? It was not I that asserted that individual consent must be obtained before legislation can be valid. You are a complete idiot, and have no idea who you are arguing with at any given time. Clearly you can't be bothered to go back through the thread to clarify who said what, and then ironically bemoan that no one else will do so, but it is only you who gets confused and mistakes one members arguments for another, not anyone else.

You go on and on attempting to frame me as the member who has argued this consent argument, actually insist I have "magicked a lie out of thin air", when in truth you have fumbled and stumbled and quite simply made a complete ass out of yourself...and let's be clear here, you necessarily have to make the 'mistake' of being 'confused' in terms of who is arguing the consent issue, because you have no reasonable arguments against what I am actually arguing.

You have nothing to say about my assertions that Newton didn't create gravity by legislating it, and that the law of gravity existed long before Newton did.

You have nothing to say in response to my assertions that the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing being described.

You have meekly attempted to convince people that I do not understand judicial review in spite of the fact that a number of legislative acts have been struck down as unlawful. You seem to miss the cogent point that if the judiciary can strike a legislative act down as unlawful, it follows that legislation in itself cannot possibly be law.

You seem to be woefully ignorant of the fact that a federal judge has recently placed the first nail in the coffin of the absurd "health care" legislation recently passed, and that thus far the federal government has not managed to do a thing about the Arizona legislation that has them in so much of an uproar. It is unlikely that the federal government will find much success with the Arizona legislation, and that state will continue to do what it deems best for its State, regardless of what the federal government has to say about it.

Although Proposition 19 failed at the ballot this last November, it is only a matter of time before states begin successfully passing legislation repealing the draconian marijuana prohibitions, and once that happens the federal government will again discover just how limited their scope actually is.

You ignore plenty of facts in order to keep insisting that all legislation has the legal force of law regardless of its actual lawfulness, and of course, you necessarily pretend that I am the one who claimed something about individuals having to give consent to a law, (although in truth the member who did make the claims you are grossly misrepresenting did not make this argument either), when it was not me that even came close to making such a claim.

You're a real piece of work.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightrule

Originally posted by duality90

Evidently noone had told Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, lawyers, legal academics, jurists, senators, representatives, law students, police officers, law enforcement officials, government/ethics teachers, and citizens, who have all plainly been the subject of an extremely elaborate lie.


Exactly.


Congress does not need to receive approval from every single citizen of the United States for a law to be both effective and constitutional.


You are completely missing the point. If I stand up and state I do not consent to an act/statute that says "You cannot hop down the street on one foot wearing purple on Tuesday" then what? Are we not equal in the eyes of the law? Think about this...


Without government, we descend into anarchy. That is simply human nature. Legislatures are empowered to legislate on behalf of their people (even if they would not necessarily agree with the content of such legislation) for their common welfare, and so that they do not have to take matters into theri own hands.


Prove it? People and by extension society itself evolves, this is fact. How will we ever know we are able to deal with our own problems if we are constantly on a government leash? This is complete bull#, I lost a lot of professional respect for you with this asinine comment.


Once that consent is given, the only way to revoke it is by either replacing the government (election) or by removing that system of governance entirely (overthrow). You do not get to pick and choose what applies to you, because what benefits you may harm others, just as what harms others may benefit you.


More asinine comments. Are you for real? If you harm someone that is a CRIME. If you commit a crime you will be punished. If I wanna smoke pot all day and sleep with 5 hookers at a time that is my business. Where is the crime? If I want to grow 100 pounds of pot in my basement and sell it to my friends and neighbors, where is the crime? If I want to let fat chicks ride my disco stick for 15 hours a day @ 50 bucks a pop, how is that a crime?

Its only a crime if you believe (mistakenly) it is, or if you consent to it. You're a smart (Read: Stupid) guy you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here. You are just pretending you do not.

Sleeping lawyers frustrate me.

-Lightrule


Again, you make a sound philosophical/theoretical point, but a crime is a crime as defined by law ('a person commits an offence if...' et c) of which legislation prohibiting certain acts plays a part. As a lawyer (you are the guy with the three/four degrees right?) how can you not know this?

That is the point. I agree that the act of possessing marijuana is victimless, but unfortunately for pot-smokers everywhere, that act is still contrary to law. Bitch and moan about it all you want, the act remains one which is met with punishment.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

I accidentally just deleted a long post I made in response to this (incredibly frustrating), but just as you would consult a Doctor (trained professional) for heart trouble, so should you consult a lawyer for at the very least, cursory advice. Most good lawyers will offer this for free initially until you decide whether or not to recruit him.

Do be careful, and exercise diligence, as you can almost be assured that the other party is coming to the table with the best help they can get. Their purpose is to defeat you - remember that Courts in America are adversarial and not inquisitorial.

That being said, if you absolutely must go down the route of jurisdictional challenge, do be careful. To successfully challenge jurisdiction in cases is extremely rare, and the literature on the internet seems to be of dubious legal validity.

i.e.

www.scribd.com...
1215.org...
www.opposingdigits.com...

The last one has apparently given jurisdiction an entirely different meaning than one would find in any of the legal literature. Beware.

Best of luck with your case.


Good morning duality & thank you for taking the time to answer me. Since you are a lawyer (in training) please take a quick look at this and tell me what you think.

Remember that I ask my questions about common law, statutes, procedure etc in a very simplistic manner as I am not a lawyer so there is no need for name calling.

I am going after subject matter jurisdiction, I am going to show you the law/statutes and my legal argument and am asking you to find the holes in it (so I can make yet a stronger argument) if that is ok with you or anyone else that feels like looking for the holes in this argument.

Let's all remember that I am the OP, that this is a real case and that I am really challenging jurisdiction instead of bending over.

Here are the facts.

1. I live in Florida and here are the complete FL statutes

2. Common law is clearly recognized in the FL STATUTES: CHAPTER 2 COMMON LAW IN FORCE


Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.


3. The State of Florida claims that I am "legally" responsible for a child that is not BIOLOGICALLY mine and that I owe child support instead of the man that is the bio dad "because of Statute" and "there's nothing the court can do" as shown below.



CNN Article

4. I recognize that the FL Statutes have the COLOR of law.

MY UNDERSTANDING

The court by forcing fathers to pay child support for children that are not theirs biologically is supporting fraud!

Paternity fraud is committed by a custodial mother who LIES about being faithful or sleeps around with multiple partners, when the custodial mother gets pregnant she then "sticks" a random guy with "paternity".

The court should not, under any circumstance, reward someone who committed fraud and punish he who is not responsible nor a party to said fraud.

By the simple fact that the court is hiding behind some statute and supporting a parent who has clearly committed paternity fraud, the court itself is involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

REMEDY

The remedy is in the law itself.

FL Statutes and FL Laws are 2 completely different books. The FL laws which are enacted by the legislative part of our government have been codified and printed into a series of books called "FL statutes".

By being charged with breaking a "FL Statute" instead of a "FL Law", it is safe to say that the books entitled "FL Statues" is where the remedy is hidden by the courts as well as the "book of law" used in the court proceedings.

I will now clearly show this Honorable forum that the "FL Statutes" used in this case are constitutionally faulty, thus void.

MY LEGAL ARGUMENT

The FL child support statutes are constitutionally faulty. Being constitutionally faulty, said law is void of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

The FL Constitution: Legistature - Laws clearly state the following in Section III - Subsection 6


Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.


Once again, Every law shall embrace but one subject and The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”

The enacting clause is a very important part of any STATUTE / LAW, it gives the law or statute its authority over people & authority to be ENFORCED on the people.

Any law or statute that is missing their enacting clause is void and lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Without an enacting clause, the people know not who wrote said law. If the people know not who is the author of said law/statute, the people are under no obligation to follow or obey said law or statute as the law or statute in question could have been written by Mickey Mouse, the Smurfs or the FL legislature.

The enacting clause adopted in the FL Constitution clearly shows that the people are required to follow the Statute.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court claims that because a birth certificate was signed BEFORE the fraud was disclosed, the non custodial father is the "legal" father of his "non biological" child and that by not challenging paternity in a "timely" manner the non bio dad is "stuck" because of statute.

This would be the case if the whole case was not constitutionally faulty from the start thus void.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear and make a determination in a court action.

The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter has been said to be essential, necessary, indispensable and an elementary prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power. 21 C.J.S., "Courts," § 18, p. 25. A court cannot proceed with a trial or make a judgment without such jurisdiction existing.


Without subject-matter jurisdiction, all of the orders and judgments issued by a judge are void under law, and are of no legal force or effect. In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Every act of the court beyond that power is void")



... all courts have general jurisdiction; however in any proceeding based on an Illinois statute (whether divorce, adoption, paternity, juvenile, probate, traffic, Illinois Appellate Courts, Federal Courts, Bankruptcy Court, etc., i.e., in any statutory proceeding), the court immediately loses its general jurisdiction powers and becomes a court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction. In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute."); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990)



In all courts of limited jurisdiction, the record of the case must support any claim of subject-matter jurisdiction. If subject-matter jurisdiction does not appear from the record of the case, the presiding judge is acting without subject-matter jurisdiction and his/her orders are void, of no legal force or effect. State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986)



In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell v. City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."); Loos v. American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841 (1988) ("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.").


COURT MUST PROCEED ACCORDING TO LAW OR STATUTE

Whenever a judge does not exactly comply with the statute, he/she has lost subject-matter jurisdiction and all orders or judgments issued without subject-matter jurisdiction are void, of no legal force or effect.

IN COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION, ALL ORDERS MUST CONTAIN THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION


A judge's allegation that he has subject-matter jurisdiction is only an allegation (Lombard v. Elmore, 134 Ill.App.3d 898, 480 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist. 1985); Hill v. Daily, 28 Ill.App.3d 202, 204, 328 N.E.2d 142 (1975)); inspection of the record of the case has been ruled to be the controlling factor. If the record of the case does not support subject-matter jurisdiction, then the judge has acted without subject-matter jurisdiction. The People v. Brewer, 328 Ill. 472, 483 (1928) ("If it could not legally hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.").


NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CHALLENGE A VOID ORDER

While in my case, a birth certificate was signed, I am well within my rights to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction. There are no statute of limitations to challenge a void order as shown in the quoted case below:


Since a void order has no legal force or effect there can be no time limit within which to challenge the order or judgment. Further since the order has no legal force or effect, it can be repeatedly challenged, since no judge has the lawful authority to make a void order valid.Bates v. Board of Education, Allendale Community Consolidated School District No. 17, 136 Ill.2d 260, 267 (1990) (a court "cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid."); People ex rel. Gowdy v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 385 Ill. 86, 92, 52 N.E.2d 255 (1943).


THE STATUTE IS VOID BECAUSE IT IS LACKING ITS ENACTING CLAUSE

If you were to look at the "Florida Statutes", you will immediately see that all of the FL statues are missing their enacting clauses. If this was done on purpose or merely by oversight, it is not my problem.

A constitutionally faulty statute is lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

The charging instrument must not only be in the particular mode or form prescribed by the constitution and statute to be valid, but it also must contain reference to valid laws. Without a valid law, the charging instrument is insufficient and no subject matter jurisdiction exists for the matter to be tried.


If a criminal statute is unconstitutional, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot proceed to try the case. 22 C.J.S. "Criminal Law," § 157, p. 189; citing People v. Katrinak, 185 Cal.Rptr. 869, 136 Cal.App.3d 145 (1982).



Upon both principle and authority, we hold that article 4, § 13, of our constitution, which provides that "the style of all laws of this state shall be, 'Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota,'" is mandatory, and that a statute without any enacting clause is void. Sjoberg v. Security Savings & Loan Assn. 73 Minn. 203, 212 (1898).


The purpose of thus prescribing an enacting clause—"the style of the acts"—is to establish it; to give it permanence, uniformity, and certainty; to identify the act of legislation as of the general assembly; to afford evidence of its legislative statutory nature; and to secure uniformity of identification, and thus prevent inadvertence, possibly mistake and fraud. State v. Patterson, 4 S.E. 350, 352, 98 N.C. 660 (1887); 82 C.J.S. "Statutes," § 65, p. 104; Joiner v. State, 155 S.E.2d 8, 10, 223 Ga. 367 (1967).

CONCLUSION

It is obvious by the hundreds of decided cases in courts all over the United States that an enacting clause is a mandatory part of any Statute and lacking it makes the law void and lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

Since jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and any judgment entered that was lacking said jurisdiction void, the signing of the birth certificate before FRAUD was disclosed is moot!

I INVITE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE

I am really looking forward to hearing duality90, Jean Paul Zodeaux, daddio and other legal eagles opinion on the matter.

Also, I do not think that this is a "crazy freemen" argument, I think it is a sound legal argument that is going to rock my judge's world



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


Obviously I am getting you upset and that is not my goal. I have read the responses and what you have said is part truth and part falsity.

We are discussing a very complex issue that covers some odd 600,000 different acts and codes when they are all counted up.

For anyone to try and summarize this is a total impossibility.

We essentially have two different models of government at work. We have the God-given rights of common law and then we have the legislated rights of commerce law, or statutory law.
The Government uses common law stare decisis to decide how statutory legislated law will be interpreted.
(The best metaphor for this that I can think of is how Judaism works. The Torah is the letter of the law and the Talmud states how it will be interpreted)

Common Law is a model of law stand alone. That was the model in England at the time of the signing of the Magna Carta.
This is law that is established over time as precedent due to jury and judicial decisions.

Statutory law is law that is legislated.

We use them both. As I said, we have two different models of government working at once.

Just as when you have criminal charges, you have two different types.

You have criminal charges which involve a victim and then you have victimless criminal charges, these are known as "commercial charges" and you are subject to them because of jurisdictional issues.

I have done my best to explain a very complicated issue as has JPZ, but you will forever tow the company line and debating you on this topic is pointless.

Incorporated entities can use their future earnings as leverage to obtain loans, you are very correct about that and that was the reasoning for my use of the word "mostly", but I mainly wanted to cover the difference between stocks and bonds.
Why cities issue bonds and how bonds get paid.

Bonds get paid through more FINES due to COMMERCIAL CHARGES in cities where they are "tough on crime".

I know that I must be getting through to you, because you are obviously very, very upset.

Calm down and have some chamomile tea.

I have filed pro-se before.
I understand how much the courts hate it when someone files pro-se, and said filer understands how the system works.
Most of the time, as soon as I ask for a court reporter to be present during all court sessions, they drop the charges.

The courts were designed to be used by the people. They were not designed to be "boys clubs" where esquires to the crown sit back and work out deals with the judge. Attorneys do not ever, with very few exceptions, have their client's best interests in mind.
They want to adjudicate. That is the goal of every person in the courtroom.

Adjudicate as quickly as possible.

Our courts were originally designed to give people justice.
They were not designed to be money factories.

edit on 3/15/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


"Subject Matter Jurisdiction" is not as rare as many would have you think. All State regulating bodies are limited by their subject matter jurisdiction. For example, if DBPR regulates Real Estate Agents, and a Teacher decides to sell Real Estate, then DBPR does not have jurisdiction to regulate that teacher. Local law enforcement may bring charges of "un-licensed activity" but the teacher is not subject to the statutes covering Real Estate agents, because the teacher is a teacher.

It is a sticky legal situation. Laws may be broken, but not the laws that the state wants to enforce. Some laws are simple and lucrative, while other laws are complicated and costly. Typically the state avoids the complicated and costly enforcement and sticks to the simple and lucrative ones.

You also need to remember that "rules" or "guidlines" or "policies" are not "laws." Child Support might recognize you as the legal guardian according to their own guidelines, and an Administrative Hearing Officer will go along with that, but a Judge may have a stricter standard to follow.

I believe you have a very good case on the grounds of subject matter jurisdiction, and if you lose, so be it, just file another motion to challenge on some other basis. The State agencies do not have the resources to constantly battle you in court, so you will win from sheer tenacity if you continue to fight. The Child Support Agency is going to fight the cases they can win, they are not going to pursue cases that require heavy time and resources and clog up the court dockets for years. They will give up.

Keep fighting!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Child Support might recognize you as the legal guardian according to their own guidelines, and an Administrative Hearing Officer will go along with that, but a Judge may have a stricter standard to follow.


It is my understanding that a Hearing Officer cannot rule on jurisdiction or constitutional matters and must send the case to a real Judge. This is what I am counting on.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Good luck, I really hope you succeed without having to continue fighting, but I agree, don't stop fighting in this. Corruption can't be allowed to continue walking over all the citizens, and it seems to be set up to exhort money out of honest, good citizens.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


If I am reading this correctly, then you are stating that you were essentially lead into signing a fraudulent contract (the BC) by the mother, and according to Florida statute, the remedy to this case would be to relieve you from the contractual obligation.

The court has ruled that you are a party to the contract because the fraud wasn't revealed until AFTER the signing of the contract.
And you are essentially arguing that the judge loses all subject matter jurisdiction because the ruling violates Florida statute.
Am I getting this right?

If so, then I think that the ruling will hinge on whether or not you can prove that the mother KNOWINGLY entered into a fraudulent contract with you.
My feeling is that the court is stating that both parties (you and the mother) saw the contract (BC) as valid at the time of signing, so the contract should be honored.

Methinks your best argument would be to prove that she knew at the time that you were not the father, but fraudulently entered into the contract (BC) with you regardless.

Let me know if I am off on this. You are in a pinch my friend. All my best.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Not being a lawyer, being unfamiliar with Florida State law, and the proliferation of posts appearing to provide legal advice makes me hesitant to add to this dialog. However, this is a discussion forum, and we are simply discussing the matter you have brought to the table, not providing legal advice.

As you may already have ascertained, my focus is on the monopoly of the BAR, entrenched legal statues that legitimize the monopoly, and the appearance that outside matters of legal self-defense, you may not be heard as you wish, regardless of the perceived morality of your position.

You are countering their attack on you property, with an attack of your own - on their standing. Considering the possible responses, an outcome beneficial to you is hard to envision. Especially since you lack 'legal competence' as defined by the BAR to bring such a case. You may defend yourself directly; but claiming the foundational elements of the proceeding are flawed will get you the standard: "You don't know what you are talking about!" retort. It is a matter of the legal community's iron-clad adherence to the meme that if you are not lawyer, your words -by definition- lack meaning or standing.... the key element is the recognition of "competence" to practice law.

Only a lawyer can compel them to listen (if only out of professional courtesy), and thus, I expect you need to retain one. Also, the law has been complicated (some might contend purposefully), to create a situation where it is impossible for a non-lawyer to operate competently within the judicial system... the blazing proliferation of non-law statutes and the blurring of the notion behind common practice, traditional practice, accepted practice, policy, statute, precedent, and law render the matter even more indistinct.

Money aside, your case is one challenging the construct, and when you challenge the construct, you threaten to upset the status-quo... which in my non-legal opinion is the entire purpose for the defense of the system to which all lawyers are duty-bound to protect.

In the end, I think your reasoning is sound. But imagine this, the more reasonable the position, the less like it will be allowed to completely upset common judicial conduct in your state. Entire business models have been set up to thrive within the construct as it now exists. This is not to say it is impossible and shouldn't be challenged; just that the more likely it is to change case law, the less likely a non-lawyer will be allowed to be the one to instigate the change.

It seems all of this angst and struggle is over a missed deadline.... is that really the linchpin of the case? It seems that an administrative hearing could very likely override the policy and change the direction of the courts mandate for child-support as a 'case-by-case' decision avoiding all this.... you may present the matter as you wish of course, but you are picking a fight with a 'system' now... not a person. That system is defended by one of the most powerful and influential organizations in the country.... the BAR.

It is a guild, and by no means is it anything but. They have all 50 states recognizing them and empower them AND NO OTHERS to practice law under criminal penalty - with the sole exception of defending oneself as provided by the Constitution..... few non-governmental organizations have that clout.

I suspect that the case you have is being flourished into oblivion. The presumption of the law is that the child is yours. There is a statutory period in which you were expected to present the exculpatory evidence, which you apparently missed. A judge must decide whether this can be waived.... It appears to me that an Administrative court should be able to 'fix' this; unless they are on the defensive. But you are entering the legal arena with guns drawn..... which is a surefire way telegraph the means to resist your argument - because now they are not defending the child alone, they are defending the child and themselves.

Are you absolutely certain there is no way you can can work "with" the court; as opposed to "against" it?

Of course, all of the above commentary - and ANY commentary EVER composed and imagined by me.... is coming from a layperson.... which again - has ZERO - weight in terms of the legal systems, and should always be presumed to carry the all-liability-excluding "CAVEAT EMPTOR!"



Interesting addendum:


LACHES, DOCTRINE OF

Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.


www.lectlaw.com...

Stuff like this is why you need a lawyer...... the "Laches" approach might be much more useful to you than a challenge of the statutory construct.

bold is mine
edit on 15-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by greenovni
 


If I am reading this correctly, then you are stating that you were essentially lead into signing a fraudulent contract (the BC) by the mother, and according to Florida statute, the remedy to this case would be to relieve you from the contractual obligation.

The court has ruled that you are a party to the contract because the fraud wasn't revealed until AFTER the signing of the contract.
And you are essentially arguing that the judge loses all subject matter jurisdiction because the ruling violates Florida statute.
Am I getting this right?

If so, then I think that the ruling will hinge on whether or not you can prove that the mother KNOWINGLY entered into a fraudulent contract with you.
My feeling is that the court is stating that both parties (you and the mother) saw the contract (BC) as valid at the time of signing, so the contract should be honored.

Methinks your best argument would be to prove that she knew at the time that you were not the father, but fraudulently entered into the contract (BC) with you regardless.

Let me know if I am off on this. You are in a pinch my friend. All my best.


The court says that a duped father just has a limited amount of time to challenge paternity, because I did not do so, I am the legal father of said child no matter what DNA says.

I am not arguing any of the points of the case at all nor arguing that the judge loses all subject matter jurisdiction because the ruling violates Florida statute.

I am simply arguing that the law at that time as well as now is void, lacking subject matter jurisdiction because the law is constitutionally defective.

Because the law is constitutionally defective, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction making the whole case null & void.


Stuff like this is why you need a lawyer...... the "Laches" approach might be much more useful to you than a challenge of the statutory construct.


Wish I could afford one
edit on 15-3-2011 by greenovni because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
In the broad sense, the OP, Freemen and J Maxwell are correct, BUT basically when you try this approach you're basically claimming diplomatic immuntity by saying no court has jurisdiction over you. The ONLY way this freeman approach could possibly work is if you were to become Stateless, that's a whole other story.

In order to invoke constitutional rights you have to be a citizen/person. There is a BIG difference between being a soverign human being and being a citzen in which you are granted rights.

That's why there there is war in the West Bank of the Gaza Strip and Afghanistan. These are the only 2 places in the world off the top of my head where people are not under the rule of Nation/State, meanning there is no defacto regime/government rule and they're not declared citizens.

I'm not saying you couldn't go into court and get a prosecutor or judge tongue tied and win a case, but more than likely, the judge will just go on with the proceedings and hold you in contempt for being disruptive if you make the proceedings impossible to continue.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



I suspect that the case you have is being flourished into oblivion. The presumption of the law is that the child is yours. There is a statutory period in which you were expected to present the exculpatory evidence, which you apparently missed. A judge must decide whether this can be waived.... It appears to me that an Administrative court should be able to 'fix' this; unless they are on the defensive. But you are entering the legal arena with guns drawn..... which is a surefire way telegraph the means to resist your argument - because now they are not defending the child alone, they are defending the child and themselves.

Are you absolutely certain there is no way you can can work "with" the court; as opposed to "against" it?

Of course, all of the above commentary - and ANY commentary EVER composed and imagined by me.... is coming from a layperson.... which again - has ZERO - weight in terms of the legal systems, and should always be presumed to carry the all-liability-excluding "CAVEAT EMPTOR!"


I missed the deadline to challenge paternity by 17 years as I recently found out that the child is not biologically mine. The court refuses to do the right thing and laughed about it. I have no other choice but to go in with my guns drawn and open fire with complete disregard to those trying to protect the system.

It looks like the court does not want this on the record at all. Something like this can rock the whole boat by putting on the record that ALL FL statues are defective.

I am hoping the court does the right thing and "gets rid of" my case, I "might" then in turn keep my mouth shut.

Since the court refuses to do the right thing, I must go on the record and show how all of their statutes and laws are void and see where the chips fall.

See, I must do this. I plan to leave the US and move to Costa Rica, in order to do so, I need a passport which I am not able to get because I "owe" child support.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


I understand now, and after reading maxmars comment, I agree wholly with the mod.

What you are doing is not contending the points of a case. This is something much bigger than you arguing whether or not the contract was fraudulent.

You are essentially saying that the statute is constitutionally invalid, and very rarely will a judge side with ANYONE whose argument has this as its foundation.

I am all about pro-se, but you my friend are walking in shark infested waters.

As I said in my PM... 99% of all lawyers are snakes in the grass that only want money and your defense depends on the amount of money that you give to them.
But not all are like that. Look and find a good one, because you are standing up to the entire system and you gotta remember that a kid is involved and that alone throws this into an entirely different direction.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
In the broad sense, the OP, Freemen and J Maxwell are correct, BUT basically when you try this approach you're basically claimming diplomatic immuntity by saying no court has jurisdiction over you. The ONLY way this freeman approach could possibly work is if you were to become Stateless, that's a whole other story.

In order to invoke constitutional rights you have to be a citizen/person. There is a BIG difference between being a soverign human being and being a citzen in which you are granted rights.

That's why there there is war in the West Bank of the Gaza Strip and Afghanistan. These are the only 2 places in the world off the top of my head where people are not under the rule of Nation/State, meanning there is no defacto regime/government rule and they're not declared citizens.

I'm not saying you couldn't go into court and get a prosecutor or judge tongue tied and win a case, but more than likely, the judge will just go on with the proceedings and hold you in contempt for being disruptive if you make the proceedings impossible to continue.


Please note that I am not going the "freemen" route. Just using their own laws which lack subject matter jurisdiction.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Greenovni is correct. If a person is married at the time of the birth, or if a person's name is on the birth certificate, then they are legally a parent, regardless of what DNA says. A Judge can change their legal paternity status, but most judges will not remove a "parent" that is paying and supporting a child. The Child Support department of the state, the legal system, and the Title IV Federal Funds are all designed to keep the best welfare of the child in mind, regardless of how it affects the parent. Therefore, it is basically impossible to get removed as a parent, unless you have a very crafty lawyer, or an even better parent you can put in your place.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by greenovni
 


I understand now, and after reading maxmars comment, I agree wholly with the mod.

What you are doing is not contending the points of a case. This is something much bigger than you arguing whether or not the contract was fraudulent.

You are essentially saying that the statute is constitutionally invalid, and very rarely will a judge side with ANYONE whose argument has this as its foundation.

I am all about pro-se, but you my friend are walking in shark infested waters.

As I said in my PM... 99% of all lawyers are snakes in the grass that only want money and your defense depends on the amount of money that you give to them.
But not all are like that. Look and find a good one, because you are standing up to the entire system and you gotta remember that a kid is involved and that alone throws this into an entirely different direction.


If I don't stand up to the system, who will? I am ready to put superman underoos on and battle the sharks UNLESS we can come up as a collective with another motion to have this dismissed while the court saves face.

What I am arguing is right, the statute is missing the enacting clause which makes it void and unconstitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join