Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lawdog
If DiM's mastery of the law is so great, how does he explain this?
from http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08...logarchive.htm
Gee, Dave, what happened with the jury trial? Why couldn't you "abate the nuisance" to make the prosecution go away before it even reached the trial stage? And why couldn't you convince a jury of the soundness of your legal theories?
Your blather may sound good to those who don't know any better, but in the real world, your theories don't amount to a hill of beans. |
Thanks for the chuckle Lawdog;
Like the Suijuris readers cannot discern that you have wandered far afield and into what is to me ancient history as far as my learning curve goes.
The motorscooter is a completely independent admiralty seizure. I have already abated traffic matters even in that same "judge's" courtroom. With nothing to lose. I somehow felt that if I could win at trial, she would be compelled to return the motorscooter. Untrue. The impound manager is another court operating on presumed forfeitures
in rem - in admiralty.
Previously in her courtroom, I refused for cause her "conviction" immediately and refused her order to report to jail on Monday by 5:00 pm. I showed at the jail with a witness and showed that the name on the docket was not my name. The undersheriff got all upset and was waving his arms around shouting, "You want me to arrest you? I am not going to do it!!"
It was hilarious.
So with the same witness I went to her courtroom the next morning and when the clerk came out to boot the computer I said, "Tell
Her Full Name superior court is here." Then when she came out of chambers and everybody rose but me, that was the only time for the next two hours she looked at me. Me and my witness left the courthouse and the case died then and there.
So let that be a lesson to learn. Before she executed sentence in the article, which I think deserves a little discussion, she recessed for no reason for ten minutes. That was my queue to get up and leave but I wanted the motorcycle back and was too confident that she would back down. But because of the first incident, when she came back, on went the cuffs...
Live and learn.
As far as the article goes, if you bothered to read it, get this line to ponder:
Quote:
|
A careful reading, however, disclosed that Merrill didn't sue the real Jesus Christ.
|
Right there you have it. The article is sensationalism for the Crown attitude that I believe has long since gotten the reporter fired. She is making out that I sued in good faith, Jesus Christ the Christian Messiah - but admits near the end that is false premise.
Regards,
David Merrill.