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

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You cite a passage from the book of Hebrews in the Christian Bible as support for your argument, and expect to be taken seriously?

Okay how about some cases then..

1. Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true. Morris v. National Cash Register Co., 44 S.W.2d 433
2. One person has no authority to make an affidavit in the name of another. Ex parte Johnson, 154 S.W.2d 854

Sorry the bible reference offends you..LD but that is one of the roots of secular law. But you are correct in that it isn't a wise move to stand in front of a Judge and quote the bible. One good way to piss him off for sure.

Bottom line is still that the affidavit is not a faulty mechanism in this case... it was the nutty suitor. I do agree with one thing you stated though.. for someone who is that unstable.. he needed someone to represent him. For someone who is of sound mind .. Pro Se is the way to go.

I stand by my statement:

"An affidavit is only as good as the fact presented within."

..J

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You also have the right to drink poison or play in traffic. But I don't recommend it.

Acting on erroneous beliefs can have dire consequences, as Mr. Martin can attest.

LAWDOG,

Thank you again for confirming my belief. Your posts seem to insight confidence(or lack of) in many of the poster's beliefs. I use insight very ambiguously here, as you do not disuade the persistent students. However, back to the confidence game. Please attempt to disuade me with the following path of reason:

confidence(belief) leads to agreement, which leads to contract, which leads to a breach of contract, which leads to breach of trust, which leads to penalties.

I will be looking forward to your rebuttal of the above reasoning.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

Okay how about some cases then..

1. Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true. Morris v. National Cash Register Co., 44 S.W.2d 433
2. One person has no authority to make an affidavit in the name of another. Ex parte Johnson, 154 S.W.2d 854

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.

[trooper2ls]

I agree LD, the laws do vary from state to state. LD, I was not attempting to argue a case here.. but grabbing a few quick cites that were not theological in nature as a reference to Hebrews seemed to put you off.

I'm a New Yorker (Western) and whenever the need arises to defend my position here.. only New York law applies.

I didn't know Mr. Martin was in Virgina.. your article just stated:

"RUSTBURG — A Campbell County man" ... It didn't mention which state and I didn't take the time to look it up... sorry, my bad.

Point well taken in cites used in cases to defend one's position... always use cites for the state you are in... or the Surpreme court if there are any.

And in my opinion.. Mr. Martin was tilting at windmills.. in expressing one's beliefs one needs to pick their battles wisely. Mr. Martin exercised poor judgement in that respect. If this case had come before me when I served on the Grand Jury.. I would have sent it on to trial too.

At least for felony charges we still have the Grand Jury process. It was a real learning experience in my 3 months of service on one. Sort of like a reality TV show, except we got to vote after each case presentation.

..J

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

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

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.

My beliefs are also supported by the law of comity. There is the Comity of Nations, the Comity of States, and Judicial Comity, all of which incorporate, or disparage the 'confidence game'. Also, there is a maxim, and a constitutional guarantee, that all are guaranteed equality under the law. I need no help in determining this to mean no state can have better laws than another state, whether that be 'case-law', statutes, ordinances, codes, and the like.

The above information is not intended to say that the law of comity has to be adhered to, but then, consent of a judicial/ministerial decision must be obtained, and how does a judicial/ministerial decision obtain one's consent with one's belief supported by the law of comity? That my friends, is the 'confidence game'.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

If this case had come before me when I served on the Grand Jury.. I would have sent it on to trial too.

Now why on earth would you have done that...knowing full well that a fellow-man is under attack by the rabid lawdogs out there; that there is no justice to be had at any price; that the only purpose of the whole charade is to cook up some fresh meat for sacrifice...

Why would you willingly contribute in any way to sending a man before a coven of witches, dressed in black, whose entire aim is to cook human flesh?

Do you really think its bad to have a pickup truck with the vin# plate removed?

Do you really even care if the truck is a vehicle or not?

Do you really think that there is any truth to be had in those who live by it's very denial? What possible argument is there with these statements:

1. Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true.

2. One person has no authority to make an affidavit in the name of another.

I don't need a court cite to observe these basic facts- any court in the world is going to have to rule by this law or it is only a court of knaves and jesters.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Do you really think its bad to have a pickup truck with the vin# plate removed?

It's about as dangerous as removing a mattress tag. It may hurt someone, so why not make it hurt everyone in the pocketbook.

The game is confidence, or the lack of self confidence. You, farmer giles of ham are a danger to the confidence game, with all of your logic and questioning. Geesh, how is the private corporation going to make a profit off of the likes of you?

When I'm not buyin' what your sellin', then I ain't payin' what your chargin'

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Now why on earth would you have done that...knowing full well that a fellow-man is under attack by the rabid lawdogs out there; that there is no justice to be had at any price; that the only purpose of the whole charade is to cook up some fresh meat for sacrifice...

Okay.. so you don't think I've lost my mind.. I'll clarify my statement. I am unfamilar with the case, but from the article that LD posted it seems this guy was tilting at windmills and was very combative in his approch to the situation. If he was tried as a felon, then at least 20 people heard the case evidence before it could have gone to trial and a 3/4 majority voted to send it on to the judge. If I was on the grand jury for that case, I may have been able to ask questions and present a compelling argument to the other jurors to drop the case.

But I was not there and was basing my theoretical vote on the article text alone. My main basis was not his license status or his government view but the fact he was carrying a conceled weapon on public school grounds and his responses that were cited in the article. If he had left the gun at home...then my viewpoint would have been different based on the article text.

My opinion is that the outcome and actions of the cops would have been different too. They viewed him as a threat to the safety of the public at large at that school. And his attitude toward "Johnny cops" didn't serve his position well toward his beliefs. He made several bad choices that made a little thing .. very big. Cops don't interpret the law they are "supposed" to be keeping the public safe. All the cops saw is a guy with a gun and a bad attitude at a school function and they freaked out.

Also his attitude once in court was a little weird too..

What are you saying when you say “guilty”? Isn’t this a “bad” thing? As you well know, all crimes are commercial liabilities. Instead of saying “I am guilty”, you are REALLY saying “I am payment”.

You are saying “the debtor is chargeable and I, as the creditor am going to pay with my signature as payment, just like all the other credit that I have created with my signature, which the municipalities and corporations have been capitalizing on up to this point.

If he was "all there" .. instead of answering the plea "the charges were bricks in the road from freedom to tyranny" he would have just pled guilty and created a bond for the payment and have been done with it.

My only reason for jumping in on that post was the title .. and the author .. because an Affidavit with supporting evidence is everything it's cracked up to be.


..J

[weishaupt1776]

So Lawdog, what valuable service were the cops providing to the "public" by harassing a man who was doing his duty as a father by supporting his little girl at a school event?

[deacon]

Very good Weis!
Just because he was a little shy on how to handle himself in their private corporate tribunal under the color of law, law mutt seems to think some odd sort of justice has been served.
I checked Montana laws and found this:
[i]3-1-102. Courts of record. The court of impeachment, the supreme court, the district courts, the workers' compensation court, the municipal courts, and the justices' courts of record are courts of record.

Hey law mutt, do you have any notion what a "court of record" is?