Commercial Affidavit of Truth: Not all it's cracked up to be

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

As it stands, Lawdog hasn't answered the questions accordingly when he accepted the challenge to do so. Failure to do so will constitute as proof that the man ( Lawdog) is a fraud, a con artist, and without merit.

LOL...only in your mind is that "proof" of any of those things.

When someone whose opinion matters agrees with you, be sure to let me know.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

LOL...only in your mind is that "proof" of any of those things.

When someone whose opinion matters agrees with you, be sure to let me know.

The facts speak for themselves.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by freebeme

I have countless dismissals

Prove it.................

[WizordofOZ]

I just find it funny you guys are arguing over winning cases, If you know enough you don't have to win cases because you don't even have to go to any...
I was stupid at one point in time and submit myself to their meandering, but you know, That was then, now, I don't have to do anything I am, well, I'll just say, invisible...

-Regnat populus-

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by mrg

Prove it.................

Mrg: I know you were referencing the quotation you posted, to wit; "Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeme

I have countless dismissals "

By stating that he has "countless dismissals", makes him a chronic and habitual liar. The use of the word 'countless' would render his statement a lie, as those records are stored either in 'hardcopy' or 'electronic' files which are by the natural laws limited to a particular volume of physical space and or 'memory' (memory as used in electronic and computer terminology). If in FACT he had 'countless' 'dismissals', then every file cabinet in the world and every computer in the world would be full of nothing but his 'countless dismissals' and even then, they would still NOT be 'countless'.

Jerry

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

When citing cases, it's important to know which ones matter, and which ones don't.

You cited two cases from West's Southwestern Reporter, 3d series.

Mr. Martin, the subject of this thread, was convicted of crimes against the laws of Virginia.

Virginia appellate cases are printed in West's SouthEASTERN Reporter (currently in the 2nd series).

Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that your citations are accurate, they are from some other state and thus not binding precedent on any court in Virginia.

No, they aren't binding, but you know damn well that they can be used as persuasive argument. After all, that IS how the doctrine of Stare Decisis works, isn't it?
AND, how do you know that they aren't law in that area? Have they been used as sources and accepted in a case before?
You assume a lot, but provide little of value. Even shoonra can shine once in a while.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I advise you to seek help from a qualified mental health professional, because you have swallowed the conspiracy kool-aid all the way.

The depth of your ignorance is shown when you make the American Bar Association a key part of your conspiracy theory. I have news for you...the American Bar Association does not license attorneys, and never has. It is a purely voluntary organization. Fewer than half the lawyers in America are members. Attorneys are licensed by the bar associations in the states and the District of Columbia. The ABA has nothing to do with it.

Demean and insult now, for your time is coming, as it is for all those who tread on us, the real living men and women.

As for the second part, OH NO, they named the wrong org. They are correct in their statements, just named the wrong org. How downright rude, better hang em.

[mrg]

What does a BAR Association license look like?

Does it say "License" on it?

Does it look like a "drivers" license?

A "liquor" license?

A "marriage" license?

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

No, they aren't binding, but you know damn well that they can be used as persuasive argument. After all, that IS how the doctrine of Stare Decisis works, isn't it?
AND, how do you know that they aren't law in that area? Have they been used as sources and accepted in a case before?
You assume a lot, but provide little of value. Even shoonra can shine once in a while.



Demean and insult now, for your time is coming, as it is for all those who tread on us, the real living men and women.

As for the second part, OH NO, they named the wrong org. They are correct in their statements, just named the wrong org. How downright rude, better hang em.

First of all, in the real world, a judge (especially a state court judge) is highly unlikely to give a s**t what the law is in some other jurisdiction on ANY given topic. I would only bother citing to some other state's law if I could not find any given cases on point. Otherwise, I could talk myself blue in the face on the jurisprudence of the other 49 states, but at the end of it, the judge is going to say, "That's all well and good, counselor, but what's the law in Georgia?"

And you say my "time is coming"? Gee, I'm so scared. Better go make sure my guns are all loaded and ready to go. Robhalford88 and his buddies are coming for me.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

First of all, in the real world, a judge (especially a state court judge) is highly unlikely to give a s**t what the law is in some other jurisdiction on ANY given topic.

First of all, in the real world, a Tory Loyalist private monopoly trade guild BAR Association bastard Attorney dressed in a cassock is highly unlikely to give a s**t what Law is.

Main Entry: bastard
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to OldFrisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date:
14th century


something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

[Brick Layer]

Every Writ I file is an Affidavit of: Writ in the nature of ???? ???representing some type of writ or omnibus motion that way I never actualy give Jurisdiction or ask for some benefit and it also needs to be rebutted or it is deemed to be true.