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

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Hmm,
I consider what purported judges do falls under the "practice of law", so your statement above regarding what judges do in not considered the "practice of law" is not true.

One, judges do not "prepare pleadings." So you misunderstand the definition you quoted.

Two, it does not matter one iota what YOU consider to be the practice of law. It only matters what the state bar associations and judicial discipline and qualifications commissions do.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

One, judges do not "prepare pleadings." So you misunderstand the definition you quoted.

Two, it does not matter one iota what YOU consider to be the practice of law. It only matters what the state bar associations and judicial discipline and qualifications commissions do.

You are acting like Humpty Dumpty.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Thank you for saving me time responding to the ridiculous post. It is amazing how people can just start running with an idea, and not even be aware that they understand the meaning of virtually none of the words used. It is laughable that members on this site consider themselves more competent than most attorneys.

It is actually to keep conflict of interest out. And when they use an attorney as a judge in muni court it is called a judge pro tem, and the the use of the judge pro tem must be agreed to by all parties.

I thought I made your ignore list?

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

One, judges do not "prepare pleadings." So you misunderstand the definition you quoted.

Two, it does not matter one iota what YOU consider to be the practice of law. It only matters what the state bar associations and judicial discipline and qualifications commissions do.

Sorry, I have to do some private work for pay now, but promise I will be back this evening to play words with you!

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Well, I posted some questions to which I am still waiting on the answers. The silence is deafening which means lawpuppy can't answer them or won't. What he is doing is exactly what Weis has said. He has roped all of you into his game of bait and switch.

I'm still waiting lawpuppy. Are you going to answer my questions? Truthfully? I guess your silence means the United States is not sovereign over the people. What I mean by people is flesh and blood men and women standing on the land and not some person (artificial entity) with a legal name.

I'm sure it's safe to assume that questions that conflict with a lawyer's oath to his/her first client will be avoided to protect that client as well as self interests.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Two, it does not matter one iota what YOU consider to be the practice of law.

It only matters what the state bar associations and judicial discipline and qualifications commissions do.

All BAR controlled?

No conflict of interest there?

Who does the "judge" "represent?"

Who "pays" the so-called "judge?"

Who pays the DA?

Who pays the plea bargain machine "public defenders?"

Are BAR attorneys "officers of the 'court'?"

Seems a bit ******uous and proliferate of bastardy.

******uous bastardy.

Your statement smacks of elitist arrogance.

What does CJS say about the first duty of any BAR Attorney, in relation to his "client" (target/victim)?

What are those footnotes I keep asking about?

Tory Loyalist Esquire BAR Association private monopoly closed shop for-profit trade guild/criminal "protection" racketeering syndicate complete with strong-arm leg breaking enforcers.

That's Justice?

It does indeed matter, in the UTMOST, precisely what I, and every other Citizen of our republics consider "practice of law," or anything else concerning our republican forms of government.

The BAR constitutes swarms of officers of the "court" eating out the sustenance of the people, I merely showed a picture of it.

Esquire Attorneys have quartered a formidable standing army to IMPOSE (one of your descriptors) your guild's religion's will upon a conquered domestic population, and you answer to your fellow war financier/investor/profiteer Esquires.

You want to condescendingly call people "boy," insane, fools, trailer park trash, lunatic fringe, etc., and then complain?

You want to banter constantly about "kool aid" and then take offense when I show it to you?

Who brought up "kool aid?"

And kept it up?

Who continually refuses to respond when the debate will take you where you cannot afford to go?

Thats a default.

That is significantly telling.

The "law" is to be accessible to what you condescendingly refer to as the "layman."

Bastard (that is a clinical term--I have posted the definition nearly every time I have used it), BAR Association Attorneys have intentionally convoluted and obscured what is to be most simple and clear, in order to profit at the expense of Justice.

That is deliberate, for-profit, and unconscionable.

As a result we now have one of the largest, if not the largest prison population in the world.

Over two million.

BAR Attorneys have absolutely no right to claim, assume, and defend at any cost exclusive exercise of the judicial Power.

To assume such is to war upon the Constitution, the republic, and the United States, each one of them.

Your "practice" is foreign to the Constitution.

That so-called "judges" (BAR Attorneys) have placed themselves above the law is anathema to a free republic.

Those who would put a stop to your racketeering are not so few, hardly insane, and not as impotent as you broadcast.

That is why you are here.

Fear.

Your backpedaling apologist defensive rhetoric consists largely of the blathering frivolous opinions of puffed up mountebanks, red herring, fallacious logical artifice, and the attempted coloring of those whom you cannot forthrightly, straightforwardly, and honestly address with whatever condescending buzz-word is currently in vogue.

Your assertion that you are here in the interests of "saving" "ignorant" "laymen" would be laughable if it were not so pathetically and obviously reeking of the protectionism of a vested interest in a monopoly trade in human flesh blood and bone.

The conscience you claim is clear, is but deeply submerged and layered with sheaves of insulating denial.

46 Then he sayde: Wo be to you also ye lawears: for ye lade men with burthens greveous to be borne and ye youre selves touche not ye packes wt one of youre fyngers.
47 Wo be to you...

52 Wo be to you lawears: for ye have taken awaye ye keye of knowledge ye entred not in youre selves and them that came in ye forbade.

You might consider a very serious study of the term "woe" and consider from Whom The Word came.

Thrice within seven verses no less.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by freebeme

So you take "preparation of pleading" and then you define it with "Preparation for offense"? Not very smart.

And then you make the ultra ignorant assertion in another thread that a "special proceeding" means "judge signing orders." Lets just face it, you have no idea what a special proceeding is.

No, you and LAWDOG took "preparation of pleading", I simply bolded the word preparation, and then used Black's Law Dictionary to define what you lawyers' define preparation as. I have simply quoted Black's Law Dictionary. Of course, you can argue amongst yourselves with Black's Law all you want.

Here is the original post from which you contrived your above quote:

Practice of Law: Not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embracing the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients.......It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.

Preparation: For offense consists in devising or arranging means or measures necessary for its commision, while attempt is direct movement toward commission after preparations are made.

Offense: It is used as a genus, comprehending every crime and misdemeanor, or a species, signifying a crime not indictable, but punishable summarily or by the forfeiture of a penalty.

Commission: A warrant or authority or letters patent, issuing from the government, or one of its departments, or a court, empowering a person or persons named to do certain acts, or to exercise jurisdiction, or to perform the duties and exercise the authority of an office.
Also, in private affairs, it sginifies the autority or instructions under which one person transacts business or negotiates for another.
In Commercial Law: The recompense or reward of an agent, factor, broker, or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his tranactions or on the profit to the principal. Or, it may mean simply a compensation.

Embracing the preparation of pleadings, and your statement to prepare pleadings are two different things. One is to prepare the pleadings, the other is the preparation from pleadings. You should no better, but I bet you do!

The words I bolded in the earlier post were simply letting you know the importance of defining those words, which I did. The atwisters decided to use the bold words as poison Kool-aid, but hey, they can do whatever they want. It still won't change the truth, and it won't change the facts I have presented.

To the group as a whole, please use this information to your benefit. This is an extreme example of 'word-smiths' at work. Also, take special notice when the word 'of' is used.

Blacks Law 4th- OF. a term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like;.....

The word has been held equivalent to after, at or belonging to.....

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Ask some questions which are 1) relevant and 2) sane and I might take the time to answer them.

Saying you're a "man (or woman) on the land" and not subject to the jurisdiction of a court without your consent because you're not the "all caps" strawman in the document, etc., etc., is a silly argument that has a 100% failure rate.

I can post some case cites and excerpts proving this if you want.

But I will not waste time debating theories which are patently ridiculous.

Where did I bring up any "silly" argument? I asked you specific questions that need answering? You heard no statements from me did you? Where did I mention "strawman?" Where did I mention any document? I asked questions that you cannot or will not answer, but I will try it again.

1. Can the United States, a creation of man be greater than its creator? Yes or no?

2. Can the United States appear in court on its own? Yes or no?

3. Can the United States give testimony? Yes or no?

4. Can the United States sign a Power of Attorney giving an attorney authority to represent it in a court of "law?" Yes or no?

5. Can the United States be sovereign over a man/woman or in other words, can the United States be sovereign over that which created it?

6. Can the United States vote? Yes or no?

7. Can the United States enter into contracts on its own? Yes or no.

8. If Congress and all government officials left DC and never came back could the United States (government) still exist? Yes or no.

9. Does it take people, men and women, my equals, to run the US government and if so are they somehow better than me? Yes or no?

Please answer the above questions and do not try to weasel out of them like you did with the nonsense you posted above.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Where did I bring up any "silly" argument? I asked you specific questions that need answering? You heard no statements from me did you? Where did I mention "strawman?" Where did I mention any document? I asked questions that you cannot or will not answer, but I will try it again.

1. Can the United States, a creation of man be greater than its creator? Yes or no?

2. Can the United States appear in court on its own? Yes or no?

3. Can the United States give testimony? Yes or no?

4. Can the United States sign a Power of Attorney giving an attorney authority to represent it in a court of "law?" Yes or no?

5. Can the United States be sovereign over a man/woman or in other words, can the United States be sovereign over that which created it?

6. Can the United States vote? Yes or no?

7. Can the United States enter into contracts on its own? Yes or no.

8. If Congress and all government officials left DC and never came back could the United States (government) still exist? Yes or no.

9. Does it take people, men and women, my equals, to run the US government and if so are they somehow better than me? Yes or no?

Please answer the above questions and do not try to weasel out of them like you did with the nonsense you posted above.

First of all, kiddo, I am not some dancing bear who has to perform at your command. And a lot of you avoid answering direct questions when I ask them.

Most of your questions have no relevance to any subject under discussion, but the short answers are:

1) Depends on how you define "greater."
2) No. Like any government, the United States can only act through agents, whether it be the President, an ambassador, an attorney, or whomever.
3) No. See answer to number two.
4) The United States does not have to sign a power of attorney in order for an attorney at law to represent it. Nor does anyone else. A power of attorney is for the purpose of giving someone (almost always a non-lawyer) authority to act for them in certain situations, but this does not extend to courtroom representation. A lawyer aka attorney at law does not need a power of attorney in order to act for a client, just the existence of an attorney/client relationship.
5) According to the Supreme Court, only the federal government and the governments of the states can claim sovereign immunity.
6) The United States has one vote in the United Nations, and a veto power on the Security Council (as do four other countries).
7) Yes, obviously. The government, acting through agents (see answer #2) can contract for such things as military equipment.
8) Yes. During the Cold War, an emergency facility was built to house Congressmen and other important officials. I think it's in West Virginia. But it's definitely not in DC.
9) Depends what you mean by "better than."

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

First of all, kiddo, I am not some dancing bear who has to perform at your command. And a lot of you avoid answering direct questions when I ask them.

Most of your questions have no relevance to any subject under discussion, but the short answers are:

1) Depends on how you define "greater."
2) No. Like any government, the United States can only act through agents, whether it be the President, an ambassador, an attorney, or whomever.
3) No. See answer to number two.
4) The United States does not have to sign a power of attorney in order for an attorney at law to represent it. Nor does anyone else. A power of attorney is for the purpose of giving someone (almost always a non-lawyer) authority to act for them in certain situations, but this does not extend to courtroom representation. A lawyer aka attorney at law does not need a power of attorney in order to act for a client, just the existence of an attorney/client relationship.
5) According to the Supreme Court, only the federal government and the governments of the states can claim sovereign immunity.
6) The United States has one vote in the United Nations, and a veto power on the Security Council (as do four other countries).
7) Yes, obviously. The government, acting through agents (see answer #2) can contract for such things as military equipment.
8) Yes. During the Cold War, an emergency facility was built to house Congressmen and other important officials. I think it's in West Virginia. But it's definitely not in DC.
9) Depends what you mean by "better than."

Here I will make it clear for you.

1. Can the United States be ruler over that which created it? Yes or no”
2. So if the United States cannot appear on its own how does the agent get authority from the United States to appear?
3. Can the United States ask the agent to appear?
4. How does the United States ask the agent to appear if it cannot talk?
5. Does one agent ask another agent to appear?
6. How does one agent asking another agent to appear somehow mean the United States has appeared and is that possible?
7. Can the United States walk into a courtroom the same as a man can, on its own?
8. In number 5 above you answered: “According to the Supreme Court, only the federal government and the governments of the states can claim sovereign immunity.” Sovereign immunity with respect to what? Other governments? Over man?
9. How can government have sovereign immunity over man, when it is man that created government? Is that possible?
10. How does the United States vote? By agent? Who gave the agent the authority to vote? Again, was it from another agent? You are not suggesting a created artificial entity (US government) can physically vote like a man can, are you?
11. In number 7 you answered: “Yes, obviously. The government, acting through agents (see answer #2) can contract for such things as military equipment.” So your answer would be it cannot contract on its own? It needs an agent to do so? How did the United States give the authority to the agent to do so? Can the United States write the authority down on paper or was it by another agent? Who created these agents? Was it the United States or some man or woman, my equal?
12. I will rephrase this question; can government exist on its own? I believe you answered that it can only exist if it has agents to act for it? So if there be no agents then is ceases to exist, correct?
13. Who appoints these agents? Is it the representatives who are sent to represent the people? If so, for whom do these agents work? Government or the people?
14. In number 9 you answered: “Depends what you mean by "better than." Are the men and women in government, my equals, ruler over me? If you answer is yes, who gave them the right to rule over me?

Awaiting further answers to these questions.