Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JFRogers01
|
Can anyone see what is wrong with this picture?? (See attachment)
Hint: The CIT avoided testimony. Notice how the clerk is telling us that the Chief Judge reviewed the papers yet the clerk is returning the filing fee? It was made quite clear at the time, by returning the filing with the filing fee, along with a copy of the laws saying the clerk was obligated to file the papers and allow us to get a ruling like the clerk was giving, that a judge's ruling on jurisdiction - even against hearing the matter was worth the $250 filing fee.
The clerk sent it back a second time.
The clerk's judgment was in error. The clerk should not be signing the judgment - especially if it had been ruled on by the chief judge there at the CIT. We did not send it for a clerk's judgment. The clerk testified for the judge - twice. The clerk telling us what the judge said is hearsay - inadmissible considering the chief judge is presumed to be fully capable of forming and signing that opinion.
So you are probably correct that CIT has jurisdiction. They just do not want to admit it and will pull something like this...
But if you know what you are doing; that will be the judgment in itself. - That the clerk makes a judicial judgment for the magistrate pretending to be a judicial "chief judge". You must form assize:
http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf
assize
Quote:
|
On appeal, Mr. Smith cites no other statutory basis for removal. Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.
|
On September 4, 2006 a jury of peers convened and formed the Instruction for the Tenth Circuit.
Quote:
|
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
|
And like with the CIT we get a very clever obfuscation from the justices. They made slur comments on the people forming a jury, but in the last sentence adjudicate that they never even heard the matter.
Regards,
David Merrill.