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: 25
153
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Where are you going to turn when the judge throws out the paperwork that's been suggested you use? Some annonymous voice on ATS? Do your very best to find a professional in Florida.


What do "professional" attorneys, i.e. licensed attorneys do when judges throw out their paper work, or do you imagine credentialism in itself is enough to keep a judge from throwing out paper work?

The federal government currently has a 97% conviction rate. 75% conviction rate for cases that actually go to trial, and the number jumps up to 97% because of plea bargains. Do you imagine this high rate of conviction is because the vast majority of people argued their cases pro se without the assistance of counsel? Isn't it far more likely that of the 97% convicted each year by the federal government, the vast majority of those people turned to lawyers to defend them? Their success rate is not so impressive. In fact, it is downright horrible.

Would you turn to a doctor who consistently kills his patients? Would you turn to an architect who consistently designs houses that will not stand? The American Bar Association has much to answer to, and it should begin with why the federal government currently has a 97% conviction rate before people foolishly turn to them for legal advice.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





What do "professional" attorneys, i.e. licensed attorneys do when judges throw out their paper work, or do you imagine credentialism in itself is enough to keep a judge from throwing out paper work?


I can tell you what they don't do, they sure as hell don't give you a refund...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 





I can tell you what they don't do, they sure as hell don't give you a refund...


Quite right, and if you wanted to sue an attorney for gross incompetence, who would you turn to then? Not Daddio, instead you have a better shot taking the advice of a different member of this site in Charles, and why? Because Daddio is suggesting you are free and sovereign unto yourself and that your rights are yours, owned by you without any government grant. No my friend, if you ever find yourself in trouble with the government, do not listen to the likes of myself but instead listen to those who assure you that you are not free, and that your rights were given to you by government, and since they were given to you they can be taken away upon whim.

It is just insane to think you are free and possess inherent political power...now bow down to the king and kiss his ring.

Sigh.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Hey if this kind of Common Law or Corporate Law isn't bad enough, its now cases of Sharia Law even for criminal cases, ie a husband rapes his wife.

I'm not good at OP's so dont want to make the thread, and also, the searches never seem to show if its been covered but, There is a New Kid on the Block and its one that is against our constitutions and our democracies, its one that is not endorsed by any of the people, no matter if they make it politically incorrect to challenge it:

www.jihadwatch.org...



Not sure what this case is for though.

www.associatedcontent.com...

Here is the criminal charge of rape being tried Sharia.


edit on 19-3-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In all honesty, if I get into trouble with the government, they will never take me alive. I will never, ever again allow myself to be treated like an animal in some jail. The "justice" system makes me sick quite frankly.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In all honesty, if I get into trouble with the government, they will never take me alive. I will never, ever again allow myself to be treated like an animal in some jail. The "justice" system makes me sick quite frankly.


The justice system is not nearly as corrupt as people have come to believe it is. No doubt it is corrupt, but people truly do get the government they deserve. Here is what I mean by this; recently in Missoula County, Montana a man arrested for the possession of a few buds wound up with a jury pool that made it clear that they would not convict over a few buds.

The prosecution whined of "mutiny" and the judge agreed and insisted that the defendant and his attorney go into his chambers and work out a deal with the prosecution. The result was an Alford Plea. An Alford Plea, for Christ's sakes! An Alford Plea is usually made when it is clear that a conviction is forthcoming but the defendant makes the plea to admit to know guilt, but accepts a lesser charge in order to avoid the clear and undeniable conviction he or she would get otherwise. However, this guy in Montana was not facing such a circumstance and was a complete fool to accept such a deal, and should have asserted his right to a jury trial, where it was clear he would not be convicted.

No doubt there was corruption in this case on every level, including the defense attorney who betrayed his client and accepted the states tyranny as the "reasonable" solution. However, the actual responsibility falls upon the man who accepted this conviction when it didn't take a rocket scientist, and not even someone with a law degree to understand he was never going to be convicted of anything had he simply just insisted on his right to a jury trial.

Lawyers...sheesh.

My point is this, let them take you alive and stand tall and challenge jurisdiction if those who have come after you have acted outside of the scope of their jurisdiction. While corruption exists, it does because we the people allow it.

Going back to the 97% conviction rate for the federal government, there are many reasons why the feds have such a high conviction rate, and one can and probably should reasonably assume one of those reasons is that if the feds don't believe they can win at trial, they back off. Consider that. If you are able to successfully challenge jurisdiction before even entering a court, if it is the federal government, there is a good chance that if your challenges are strong and hard to beat, the feds will just back off. Food for thought.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

Nice to hear from you again. You know, I must really attend a writing class. I am so badly misinterpreted that it can't all be the reader's fault.

Allow me to try to clear up the portion in question. I did not mean to express any opinion on the likelihood of success. The question was "Where are you going to turn...." Daddio is, as am I, an anonymous voice in an electronic windstorm. What recourse is there if daddio provides harmful information? Can daddio be sued for malpractice? Can he be forced to surrender his law license? Can he suffer any penalty at all?

I was simply suggesting the use of an attorney, and several ways of finding one.

You, however seem to be concerned about the likelihood of success. There is no sense whatever in comparing federal criminal conviction rates to local family court outcomes. The standards of proof are different, the resources put into each case is different. The figure of 97% seems to have little bearing in this case. Besides, you are pointing out that federal prosecutors win the vast majority of their cases, they must be pretty good lawyers. Or are you contending that prosecution lawyers are good and defense attorneys are incompetent? But as I've mentioned the 97% figure means nothing in a family court case.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Dear Charles,

It is nice to see you as well, and in my not so humble opinion, your writing skills are fine.

The likelihood of success is paramount when facing the tyranny of government. For some, a failure to succeed can end up in imprisonment, and for others, such as greenovni, failure to succeed has ended in his life being turned into a living hell. When facing the tyranny of the state, failure is not an option.

What consolation is there in the idea that if someone has turned to an attorney and that lawyer failed them due to gross incompetence that the best that can be hoped for is that attorney's license will be revoked? Who would be revoking this license? Why the very same organization that gave the license to begin with! The very fact that licenses can be and are revoked speaks volumes to the value of licensing schemes.

Was it a license that made Clarance Darrow such a renowned lawyer, or did it have something to do with his legal acumen? Did a license bring about this legal acumen?

Greenovni has used an attorney. Two attorneys if I remember correctly. Where has that got him? Further, your insistence that it makes no sense to compare federal conviction rates with family court outcomes misses the point. It is not as if there is a distinction between federal defense attorney's and state defense attorney's. My point is that part of the reason the federal government has managed to obtain such a high conviction rate is through the willing assistance of licensed attorneys who are more concerned with keeping their licenses than defending their clients. They have sworn a fealty to the court, not to their client. This point should not be lost.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TKDRL
 





I can tell you what they don't do, they sure as hell don't give you a refund...


Quite right, and if you wanted to sue an attorney for gross incompetence, who would you turn to then? Not Daddio, instead you have a better shot taking the advice of a different member of this site in Charles, and why? Because Daddio is suggesting you are free and sovereign unto yourself and that your rights are yours, owned by you without any government grant. No my friend, if you ever find yourself in trouble with the government, do not listen to the likes of myself but instead listen to those who assure you that you are not free, and that your rights were given to you by government, and since they were given to you they can be taken away upon whim.

It is just insane to think you are free and possess inherent political power...now bow down to the king and kiss his ring.

Sigh.


I thank you Jean Paul, I have grown tired of explaning this to duality90, people like this are never going to argue FOR the innocence of the people and for the protection of their natural rights, it is always about equity, and the transsfering of property through deciet.

I hope people who read your work and Proto's work open thier minds and understand it simply, Living people have and retain ALL the power. They don't bother reading Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" is a very thin book and great read, it is a good start for anyone, it opens the mind gently and brings out of the pages, insightful wisdom. Wish more people would read.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by charles1952
 





Where are you going to turn when the judge throws out the paperwork that's been suggested you use? Some annonymous voice on ATS? Do your very best to find a professional in Florida.


What do "professional" attorneys, i.e. licensed attorneys do when judges throw out their paper work, or do you imagine credentialism in itself is enough to keep a judge from throwing out paper work?

The federal government currently has a 97% conviction rate. 75% conviction rate for cases that actually go to trial, and the number jumps up to 97% because of plea bargains. Do you imagine this high rate of conviction is because the vast majority of people argued their cases pro se without the assistance of counsel? Isn't it far more likely that of the 97% convicted each year by the federal government, the vast majority of those people turned to lawyers to defend them? Their success rate is not so impressive. In fact, it is downright horrible.

Would you turn to a doctor who consistently kills his patients? Would you turn to an architect who consistently designs houses that will not stand? The American Bar Association has much to answer to, and it should begin with why the federal government currently has a 97% conviction rate before people foolishly turn to them for legal advice.



I don't think it's fair to blame the defense lawyers, even in light of that statistic. The problem is the needlessly adversarial system where the truth can often not be the most important focus of the trial. It's a broken system which people constantly vote for by voting for hard-ass DAs and Judges.

Alot of defendants, when faced with evidence which is going to be difficult to refute (obviously, there is the presumption of innocence, but let's be realistic - the majority of people arrested and charged for crimes have found themselves in that situation not by pure unfortunate circumstance) choose to go the route of plea bargain, hence the high conviction rate.

I have a friend that is a public defender over in SC and asked him what he does when given a client and faced with evidence that is pretty incontrovertible. He said that he reiterates that it is the defendant's legal right to a trial, and that he can very well plead not guilty if he so chooses - but that, in light of the evidence (let's say for example, CCTV footage clearly placing the defendant at the scene and time of the crime), he really doesn't know what he's going to say in his opening statement to downplay the credibility of that evidence.

In that instance, can you blame the lawyer for throwing out the idea of a plea bargain? His job after all is to either assert the defendant's innocence, or mitigate his punishment insofar as is possible if acquittal is realistically impossible.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Hey if this kind of Common Law or Corporate Law isn't bad enough, its now cases of Sharia Law even for criminal cases, ie a husband rapes his wife.

I'm not good at OP's so dont want to make the thread, and also, the searches never seem to show if its been covered but, There is a New Kid on the Block and its one that is against our constitutions and our democracies, its one that is not endorsed by any of the people, no matter if they make it politically incorrect to challenge it:

www.jihadwatch.org...



Not sure what this case is for though.

www.associatedcontent.com...

Here is the criminal charge of rape being tried Sharia.


edit on 19-3-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure what the situation is in the US, but even in the UK, Sharia is actually accepted as a form of mediation between parties over small disputes, usually commercial in nature, in Muslim communities.

I know that the mere mention of Sharia law immediately creates a sense of fear, but when confined to such circumstances (and given that a party can opt out, if I'm not mistaken) and both parties (presumably Muslim) consent to such a system, I can't really see the harm it does.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TKDRL
 





I can tell you what they don't do, they sure as hell don't give you a refund...


Quite right, and if you wanted to sue an attorney for gross incompetence, who would you turn to then? Not Daddio, instead you have a better shot taking the advice of a different member of this site in Charles, and why? Because Daddio is suggesting you are free and sovereign unto yourself and that your rights are yours, owned by you without any government grant. No my friend, if you ever find yourself in trouble with the government, do not listen to the likes of myself but instead listen to those who assure you that you are not free, and that your rights were given to you by government, and since they were given to you they can be taken away upon whim.

It is just insane to think you are free and possess inherent political power...now bow down to the king and kiss his ring.

Sigh.


I thank you Jean Paul, I have grown tired of explaning this to duality90, people like this are never going to argue FOR the innocence of the people and for the protection of their natural rights, it is always about equity, and the transsfering of property through deciet.


Quelle arrogance! If you are going to insult me you could at least do so without throwing out more incorrectly held beliefs about what equity is (evidently my attempts have been as unsuccessful on you as yours have been on me).

Contrary to your presumptions Daddio, since attending law school I think I have become quite a bit more liberal in my political views and my respect for the rule of law. How dare you say I would never argue for the innocence of people. I used to work for a County District Attorney and was appalled at the outrageously harsh punishments meted out to people for what I would not have considered to have been serious crimes.

Just because I refute (or attempt to refute) the arguments of the freeman movement which I believe are based on incorrect knowledge of the law (and thus do no good to someone pleading such arguments before a court where they stand substantial loss of either freedom or assets) does not mean I believe that the prosecuting authorities should prevail against all costs.

The criminal justice system (at least) is out of control in America, with politicians (including DAs and Judges) pushing the 'hard on crime' approach to pander to voters, which ultimately leads to one of the most backward, if not arguably the most backward criminal justice systems in the Western world.

Unfortunately, so long as the judiciary at its lower levels remains politicised (even at the highest levels, I do not think that the personal appointment of judges by the Executive is healthy for a democracy) we will continue to see unduly harsh results meted out to defendants, even those who are guilty. If anything, California's criminal justice system is a model example of why the US would do well to abandon the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality - it is obviously sucking the coffers dry as well as failing to actually cut the rates of re-offenders.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Do not count yourself out yet. You have question, there is no such thing as a stupid question, just a stiupid response if it does nothing to further the debate or does not give you enlightenment.



The one rule in which all common law is based is....Do unto others... no victim, no crime.


This is possibly the most un-factual statement you have yet made.


Be responsible and you need no governing. It is not hard to see who benefits from all the crime and thus is suspect to causing all the crime. No crime, no need for cops or judges or LAWYERS!!!


Unfortunately daddio, people need governing because plainly not everyone is able to conduct themselves with responsibility. I do not doubt your responsibility as an adult, but can you say you have perfect faith in everyone in the world to be responsible and not to harm each other? I certainly cannot.


I owe NOTHING "to" the "State" as I recieve nothing there from.


I'm not even sure where to begin on that.

Do you honestly just make this up as you go along?

A+ for discrediting yourself.
edit on 20-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





Unfortunately, so long as the judiciary at its lower levels remains politicised (even at the highest levels, I do not think that the personal appointment of judges by the Executive is healthy for a democracy) we will continue to see unduly harsh results meted out to defendants, even those who are guilty. If anything, California's criminal justice system is a model example of why the US would do well to abandon the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality - it is obviously sucking the coffers dry as well as failing to actually cut the rates of re-offenders.


"the personal appointment of judges by the Executive is healthy"

Now YOU stated that yourself.

You said it very clearly righ there. If a judge, DA or any other prosecutor is APPOINTED by the "Executive branch" then they are NOT part of the judicial branch and therefore are "acting" illegally and unlawfully. It's as simple as that. They are not lawful "judiciary people". And they then have no jurisdiction.

Again, statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations ARE NOT LAWS. JPZ has pointed this out many times. And once again, NO VICTIM, NO CRIME! The "state" can not be a victim. Read your states constitution, ALL political power is inherent IN THE PEOPLE. The "state" is a falacy, it does not and can not exist without the people. So how can you charge yourself or recover damages from yourself? It's Feudal!!!

I still find it funny that you think people are commerce and equity, chattel paper if you will.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
This is a very interesting thread and by all means I hope you are victorious in your legal precedings. I probably would've attempted this technique if I had known about it, but instead I chose to use the picture box's idea instead. I forgot what the hell I was watching lol. Anyways, I had a court case, well municipal, for allegedly not wearing a seat belt and failure to yield the right of way in Texas. I never ever expected to win this just so you know. So, the day for arraignment arrives and I go. I get to the judge he says bla bla bla I say not guilty and ask for a bench trial. So, I have to wait to speak with the county prosecutor now. I get to that step and he's like so what's going on? I ask him,"Where's your evidence?" He's like,"I don't need any." I laugh internally and say ok set a date. Anyways, I'm waiting for the day to arrive and these ladies have the audacity to move my trial to an earlier date. So, I return and request a jury trial. Papers get signed and bla bla bla. Trial date comes... The state only has one piece of evidence which is an affidavit from a police officer and of course his testimony. The prosecutor makes him out to sound like an experienced officer of the city and what not. I just sit patiently and wait my turn, by the way i went pro se. My turn arrives and I purposely ask how long he's been a police officer just so the jury gets it. 15 years sounds pretty sharp right? Then I ask,"Why did you deliberately choose not to tape the day of the incident?" His response,"Not all the vehicles come with cameras." (You guys seen cops right?) I look at the judge and ask,"How can we prove he's not lying?" He looks at me like idk. He looked hungover honestly. Anyways, I finished my cross-examination with that. Closing statements was next and the prosecutor just reiterated senseless mickey mouse babble. I told the jury,"No one should ever be convicted of any crime anywhere in the United States just over one person's testimony; it's just not concrete evidence and it's synonymous to a salem witch trial" They go into deliberation. I'm thinking to myself... Damn, I don't feel like giving them 500$ or whatever it would've been. They come out and boom not guilty on both counts! I totally broke them laws! Well, not the failure to yield right of way. I think the cop was mad I cut his ass off. So all in all t.v. can be helpful sometimes lol... In a jury trial, you just got to make them get on your side. It's easy, especially when there isn't much evidence. I would like to try this freeman theory out though. Too bad, I have no legal troubles. Sad times I'm in... I think the freeman thing might work. If bribes can work, so can that!

Also, to the person that said let the lawyers handle the law or something like that. I really didn't expect anyone on this site to say that. Should I let George W. Bush interpret the constitution for me?!(Sorry I didn't quote)

Either ways, good luck in your struggles!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotAct
This is a very interesting thread and by all means I hope you are victorious in your legal precedings. I probably would've attempted this technique if I had known about it, but instead I chose to use the picture box's idea instead. I forgot what the hell I was watching lol. Anyways, I had a court case, well municipal, for allegedly not wearing a seat belt and failure to yield the right of way in Texas. I never ever expected to win this just so you know. So, the day for arraignment arrives and I go. I get to the judge he says bla bla bla I say not guilty and ask for a bench trial. So, I have to wait to speak with the county prosecutor now. I get to that step and he's like so what's going on? I ask him,"Where's your evidence?" He's like,"I don't need any." I laugh internally and say ok set a date. Anyways, I'm waiting for the day to arrive and these ladies have the audacity to move my trial to an earlier date. So, I return and request a jury trial. Papers get signed and bla bla bla. Trial date comes... The state only has one piece of evidence which is an affidavit from a police officer and of course his testimony. The prosecutor makes him out to sound like an experienced officer of the city and what not. I just sit patiently and wait my turn, by the way i went pro se. My turn arrives and I purposely ask how long he's been a police officer just so the jury gets it. 15 years sounds pretty sharp right? Then I ask,"Why did you deliberately choose not to tape the day of the incident?" His response,"Not all the vehicles come with cameras." (You guys seen cops right?) I look at the judge and ask,"How can we prove he's not lying?" He looks at me like idk. He looked hungover honestly. Anyways, I finished my cross-examination with that. Closing statements was next and the prosecutor just reiterated senseless mickey mouse babble. I told the jury,"No one should ever be convicted of any crime anywhere in the United States just over one person's testimony; it's just not concrete evidence and it's synonymous to a salem witch trial" They go into deliberation. I'm thinking to myself... Damn, I don't feel like giving them 500$ or whatever it would've been. They come out and boom not guilty on both counts! I totally broke them laws! Well, not the failure to yield right of way. I think the cop was mad I cut his ass off. So all in all t.v. can be helpful sometimes lol... In a jury trial, you just got to make them get on your side. It's easy, especially when there isn't much evidence. I would like to try this freeman theory out though. Too bad, I have no legal troubles. Sad times I'm in... I think the freeman thing might work. If bribes can work, so can that!

Also, to the person that said let the lawyers handle the law or something like that. I really didn't expect anyone on this site to say that. Should I let George W. Bush interpret the constitution for me?!(Sorry I didn't quote)

Either ways, good luck in your struggles!


haha that is an awesome story man. Good job.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm almost sorry I found this thread.


Sigh. Same here...

I can't recall the last time I saw so much nonsense in a thread!


Originally posted by charles1952
It is possible that you might win a low level case using these tactics if the staff decides they don't care or can't be bothered. You may be just be dismissed as a harmless nut and allowed to avoid a fine. (The odds of this happening are incredibly small, but I suppose it is conceivable.)

But please, and I can't stress this enough, at least talk to an attorney about your situation before you do anything. Many attorneys will take a few cases each year pro bono (free). Many will give you a half hour of free consultation. Lots of them have fees based in part on your income. Your State Bar Association will help you find a lawyer that practises in the area you're having a problem with.


I'd just like to echo these sentiments as applying equally in relation to the courts in England.

If someone appeared before most of the judges in England that I know that persisted with the sort of argument put forward by some people in this thread, the judge would first be somewhat puzzled, then amused, then probably rather irritated.

And the last thing you want is an irritated judge...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 23-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm almost sorry I found this thread.


Sigh. Same here...

I can't recall the last time I saw so much nonsense in a thread!


Originally posted by charles1952
It is possible that you might win a low level case using these tactics if the staff decides they don't care or can't be bothered. You may be just be dismissed as a harmless nut and allowed to avoid a fine. (The odds of this happening are incredibly small, but I suppose it is conceivable.)

But please, and I can't stress this enough, at least talk to an attorney about your situation before you do anything. Many attorneys will take a few cases each year pro bono (free). Many will give you a half hour of free consultation. Lots of them have fees based in part on your income. Your State Bar Association will help you find a lawyer that practises in the area you're having a problem with.


I'd just like to echo these sentiments as applying equally in relation to the courts in England.

If someone appeared before most of the judges in England that I know that persisted with the sort of argument put forward by some people in this thread, the judge would first be somewhat puzzled, then amused, then probably rather irritated.

And the last thing you want is an irritated judge...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 23-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


This thread evolved and I doubt that you read all of it. With that being said, it evolved into this particular question:

Is the statute used in my case, used to come after me for back child support, for a child that is not biologically mine, valid?

Section 3, Article 6 of the Florida constitution says the following about laws:


SECTION 6. Laws.—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:”.


The important part of the above statement is The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Of EVERY law SHALL read....

That means that every single law MUST have the enacting clause, which is what tells the people under what AUTHORITY the law was created.

& guess what Mr. Barrister , the statute used to make me a victim of court supported FRAUD is missing said enacting clause.

Because the enacting clause is missing, the law is constitutionally defective which makes the law and any past judgments rendered void.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by duality90
 





Unfortunately, so long as the judiciary at its lower levels remains politicised (even at the highest levels, I do not think that the personal appointment of judges by the Executive is healthy for a democracy) we will continue to see unduly harsh results meted out to defendants, even those who are guilty. If anything, California's criminal justice system is a model example of why the US would do well to abandon the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality - it is obviously sucking the coffers dry as well as failing to actually cut the rates of re-offenders.


"the personal appointment of judges by the Executive is healthy"

Now YOU stated that yourself.

You said it very clearly righ there. If a judge, DA or any other prosecutor is APPOINTED by the "Executive branch" then they are NOT part of the judicial branch and therefore are "acting" illegally and unlawfully. It's as simple as that. They are not lawful "judiciary people". And they then have no jurisdiction.

Again, statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations ARE NOT LAWS. JPZ has pointed this out many times. And once again, NO VICTIM, NO CRIME! The "state" can not be a victim. Read your states constitution, ALL political power is inherent IN THE PEOPLE. The "state" is a falacy, it does not and can not exist without the people. So how can you charge yourself or recover damages from yourself? It's Feudal!!!

I still find it funny that you think people are commerce and equity, chattel paper if you will.


Was that not obvious? And how are they not lawfully part of the judiciary? As far as I was aware that was the system described in the constitution was it not?

I don't think it's healthy. Doesn't mean that it's wrong or invalid.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm almost sorry I found this thread.


Sigh. Same here...

I can't recall the last time I saw so much nonsense in a thread!


Originally posted by charles1952
It is possible that you might win a low level case using these tactics if the staff decides they don't care or can't be bothered. You may be just be dismissed as a harmless nut and allowed to avoid a fine. (The odds of this happening are incredibly small, but I suppose it is conceivable.)

But please, and I can't stress this enough, at least talk to an attorney about your situation before you do anything. Many attorneys will take a few cases each year pro bono (free). Many will give you a half hour of free consultation. Lots of them have fees based in part on your income. Your State Bar Association will help you find a lawyer that practises in the area you're having a problem with.


I'd just like to echo these sentiments as applying equally in relation to the courts in England.

If someone appeared before most of the judges in England that I know that persisted with the sort of argument put forward by some people in this thread, the judge would first be somewhat puzzled, then amused, then probably rather irritated.

And the last thing you want is an irritated judge...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 23-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



As I've said: you can lead a donkey to water, but you can't force it to drink.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join