If I am mistaken in that construction of your use of the term 'always', then at what point in your chronological existence did you start using the above procedure? Also, at what point in your chronological existence did you exercise some 'procedure' to correct the obvious 'in error' procedures of the past once you realized you had been doing things in error? What procedure did you use to make such corrections of 'in error' dealings of the past regarding those various procedures in which you have deliberated on within this forum?
No need for another thread. I did not say that I have always...
The right to be heard. I think that is what Soldier got on about a couple posts back.
Quote:
Exactly! THAT is the law of contract in action.
If it is not entered into the case, then it does not exist. Furthermore I would only be present to answer in a Restricted Appearance under Rule E(8) which excludes any and all other contracts. So it matters not how long ago I was the legal name in effect, that has never been my name.
Like this attempt to Answer the Libel of Review (wrapped around a sleezy money-grubbing attorney's attempt to fleece one of Lawdog's referrals). The first point made is in error and based on that lack of knowledge about law, in law and at law, the defendant and his expensive attorney firm completely failed to answer at all.
The error that kills them is that they think his "real name" is his legal or full name. When his real name is indeed what his parents named him. The attorneys have no say in what the guy's name is. His parents were the final authority about what his name is.
The point being that if I appear restricted about one specific contract, it is irrelevant and outside the scope of jurisdiction should my opposition bring up some ID card I used in college or whatever. That is another contract that holds no weight under the conditions of restricted appearance.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
No need for another thread. I did not say that I have always...
Thank you for the further clarification below, as it gives a hint of the rationale that you use in your current affairs. As to your italicized text above, notice in my original post http://www.suijuris.net/forum/140503-post36.html
I did not use the word "have" either. I used a direct quotation of your former statement.
However, my construction of the manner of what you said, is not in error:
al·ways (ôl′wāz, ô′wāz)
adverb
1. at all times; on all occasions; invariably always be courteous
2. all the time; continuously; forever always present in the atmosphere
3. at any time; whenever one wishes you can always leave if the show gets boring
4. in every instance; with no exception Labor Day is always the first Monday of September
Etymology: ME, adv. gen. of alwei, alway < OE ealne weg: see all & way"
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
The right to be heard. I think that is what Soldier got on about a couple posts back.
If it is not entered into the case, then it does not exist. Furthermore I would only be present to answer in a Restricted Appearance under Rule E(8) which excludes any and all other contracts. So it matters not how long ago I was the legal name in effect, that has never been my name.
Like this attempt to Answer the Libel of Review (wrapped around a sleezy money-grubbing attorney's attempt to fleece one of Lawdog's referrals). The first point made is in error and based on that lack of knowledge about law, in law and at law, the defendant and his expensive attorney firm completely failed to answer at all.
The error that kills them is that they think his "real name" is his legal or full name. When his real name is indeed what his parents named him. The attorneys have no say in what the guy's name is. His parents were the final authority about what his name is.
The point being that if I appear restricted about one specific contract, it is irrelevant and outside the scope of jurisdiction should my opposition bring up some ID card I used in college or whatever. That is another contract that holds no weight under the conditions of restricted appearance.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit.
If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.
'Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails."
Proverbs 19:21.
"The most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen."
Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1916-1939) referring to the responsibility of voters.
I have never even considered exploring the word always. Interesting.
I meant more, Now that I know better, I always...
But you brought something to mind. A domineering administrator would not allow me to see the doctor unless I put my address on the form. So after a bit of argument I made one up for her. As I was paying afterward, the amount agreed upon before the exam I requested the form because that was not my address. She gave me the clipboard thinking I was going to correct it - instead I just struck it through and informed her that I had just made up that address so that I could see the doctor.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
Concerning Social Security, in special circumstances, they will delete the personal information in relation to the number, but not the number itself.
It would seem to me that there are some similarities to this and personal information in a file of theirs. So the information once provisioned to them ceases to be mine, but they will remove the SSN upon request (which isn't mine either...LOL).
Concerning Social Security, in special circumstances, they will delete the personal information in relation to the number, but not the number itself.
It would seem to me that there are some similarities to this and personal information in a file of theirs. So the information once provisioned to them ceases to be mine, but they will remove the SSN upon request (which isn't mine either...LOL).
- netwrkranger
IMHO, I believe that the term 'remove' should have been reassigned. Rationale. Because you are not the owner of either the file or the number, and you are seeking that the file, bearing information relative to your incorporeal being, not be used any longer in relation to your incorporeal being; I believe this is similar to the action of the USPS and their method of handling parcels of mail that are undeliverable -- they simply place them in the "dead letter office" where they remain for an unknown period of time waiting to see if the information is really 'dead' or if it is going to be revitalized. Just a view point.
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.
__________________
Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit.
If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.
'Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails."
Proverbs 19:21.
"The most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen."
Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1916-1939) referring to the responsibility of voters.
I was talking to an advisor for a law school inquiring about the JD program (thinking of pursuing a joint MBA/JD degree). I had asked her a few questions, one of them being are most of the classes for equity/admiralty proceedings? She didn't answer the question. Gave me standard information ie. torts, real estate, etc.
I then asked her about classes focusing on common law. I told her that attorneys say that common law is case law, but there are others who say it is more than that. Afterwards, the poor lady could barely formulate a sentence. I behaved myself and just backed off.
You ever consider maybe she isn't a lawyer and did not know how to answer the questions? Law schools have plenty of non-attorney staff. The registrar and head of career services/job placement are two typical examples. They don't teach classes, so no one cares that they don't have a JD degree and have never passed a bar exam.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
[b]Lawdog[/b[ wrote:
You ever consider maybe she isn't a lawyer and did not know how to answer the questions? Law schools have plenty of non-attorney staff. The registrar and head of career services/job placement are two typical examples. They don't teach classes, so no one cares that they don't have a JD degree and have never passed a bar exam.
That could be true, however, she said she knew what I was talking about and then sought to stumble her way through. If she didn't know how to answer the question, she should have stated as such.
Then again, I didn't ask her about her credentials. I only asked questions pertaining to the law school. One of my questions just happened to be about courses with focus in common law and common law court procedures.
Quote:
hippy wrote:
Network,
Have you explored CFR 301.6109-1(g)?
I have not. How would this information relate to this thread?
Last edited by netwrkranger : 06-24-2008 at 10:29 AM.
Linear Mode
