BulletProof,
I have to appear in court regarding a motion I entered for the plaintiff to produce the original contract. In your opinion will the judge want to know my name and if so, is it best for me to respond like your example:
The collection agency/law firm sent an interrogatorries after my motion to compel. I then answered with a motion to dismiss due to suject matter jurisdiction. Do I still need to answer the interrgatorries even though I have filed a motion to dismiss?
Quote:
Let me elaborate a bit...
Judge: "Is there a JOHN DOE here?
You: "I'm here about that matter your honour"
Judge: "State your name please"
You: "I shall give you my name your honour upon proof of claim you have juristiction over the matter pending.."
Judge" What's this Verificiation of debt notice all about?"
You: "I accept your offer your honour to get me to explain anything to the court upon proof of claim there's a controversy here.."
Judge"stand up please"
You: "I shall stand your honour, however I do not waive any common law rights, nor do I grant in-personam juristiction"
Judge: "Look is your name JOHN DOE or not?"
You: "If I tell you my name is JOHN DOE your honour, will you assume it's the same JOHN DOE on the presentment?"
and so on....
The court is like an electrical device. A circuit court. It needs your commercial energy to "move". Charge, discharge, etc.
Same with traffic tickets. It's all about negotiable instruments and banking rules. The cop is the maker of the ticket (cheque), and he's writing it out and giving it to you (the bank) to pay the recipient (the govt.).
If you went to a bank with a cheque, and tried to get them to pay, they will first ask for proof of claim, or basically, check the account to see if there are enough funds.
A bank can't dishonour a cheque by not paying (unless there's no money) and you can't dishonour the policeman or negotiable instrument by not paying (unless there's no proof of claim).
By asking for proof of claim, (which of course there is none....(by the way you're not asking for evidence here, like a speed camera photo) you're simply rebutting the presumption that there's a controversy.
If a cop say's you weren't wearing your seatbelt, what proof is there? It's all heresay, which is not admissable unless you get into court and he signs a declaration.
If you never argue, you stay in honour, and hopefully, out of that fictitious court matrix.
Remember there's only 4 choices in honour/dishonour:
1. Argue: Dishonour
2. Silence: Dishonour
3. Acceptance: Honour
4. Conditional Acceptance: Honour
Number 4. is the magic number, where you get to stay in honour, not in contempt, and there's no entry.
BULLETPROOF
|