Attorneys testifying to facts

[ntellect]

Hey, I'm back. It's been a long time but I'm still fighting. Seems here in Georgia the courts just steam roll you no matter what you present as evidence.



I'm currently putting together a brief for my Appeal of the lower court ruling in granting a Writ Of Possession. I need to find some case law on attorneys not being able to testify to facts, no competent witness and any corresponding Georgia Codes to support it. I can't find a thing in that area.



It seems there is a tone of info out there and many different ways to fight this fight. I have attempted to use many of them but have not obtained victory. Nor have I found one single person who has won. In other words one who has defeated their mortgage company and has their deed in hand and no more drama.



Still fighting.

Peace and Blessings

[KaosTheory]

Check out:



Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 Basically, it says that the an attorney can not enter evidence into a case. Only a competent witness can. If it isn't available on this site, let me know and I'll upload it unless someone has a link to it. Anybody got a link?



Here is a paste from an email I got:



For some reason this case is coming up more and more in my life and I am getting more and more requests from people asking the question, "How do I shut down that *$#&ing attorney who is testilying?"



This is the defining case... and I don't say that lightly, for indeed when you read it you will find that it is THE case cited for FRCivP 12(b) (6). Now, while what it says at 12(b) (6) is good, notice how I have highlighted some items from the actual decision, it goes MUCH further than 12(b) (6) does and we should also.



Keep in mind the two Maxims in Law that are opposite sides of the same coin:



Truth is Expressed in for Form of an Affidavit.

&

An Unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in the Matter.



Now, while keeping these in mind, think about when someone like an attorney for the IRS comes forward and "testilies" about how you did such-and-such. Are they a First-Hand-Witness, or simply a "Statement of Counsel in Brief or Argument?" Shut them down! Hit them with Trinsey and get the "Judge" to take official Judicial Notice of it. If the "Judge" does not sustain your object, you need to immediately file an oral "Affidavit of Prejudice" against the "Judge" as he has shown his prejudice and then file the same Affidavit in writing into the record with witnesses to the same. Once your Affidavits are filed, get a record of what has been filed and show that you are the only one who has actually introduced FACTS into the case and move for Summary Judgment upon the Facts... while reminding the "Judge" that the ONLY thing he is to consider is the FACTS of the case ON THE RECORD, that the opposing "counsel" has only been "enlightening" to the Court, but not sufficient to rise to the level of FACT.



There is your 3-minute lesson for today, if you found it helpful, please remember my family in your prayers and especially for my lovely Bride Susan that she may soften her heart and start talking to me and for some financial support to come to our family since I am fighting this battle for my life* I have not been able to work for others and the money has stopped coming in when it is needed most.



*Think about it, if I am "convicted" of "Assault/Domestic Violence" like they are "charging" me, I will be considered by the prison population as a "child molester" and the worst kind, one who has "molested" his own child, my life will not be worth anything.



L8r,

Marcel Roy Bendshadler

Constitutional Counsellor

[Akira]

Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647

"statements of counsel, in brief, or arguement, are insufficient for a summary judgement"



This is one of the powerfiul weapons at our disposal..



It's just one sentence.....



MEMORIZE IT !



(HINT: write it down and tape it up in places where you look every day... on your alarm clock, on the bathroom mirror, on the coffee maker, or on your cup ! put it on your rear view mirror, ect. it takes 21 consecutive days to make or break a 'habit'... leave the quote posted for 21 days, and it will be engrained in your brain forever...)



For HIS Glory,

Akira

[ntellect]

Great posts guys and much thanks. The only thing I'm wondering now is how this would work in a "non-judicial" state, such as Georgia. In Georgia, in the case of foreclosures, there isn't a summary judgement because "technically" speaking it isn't considered a judicial process I believe because of it being a Dispossessory Hearing not case or trial. Hope that makes sense. (Any elaborations on that will be appreciated) It's just an "order" of Writ of Possession which isn't considered a "judgement" from what I understand. So does that mean that an attorney isn't necessarily testifying to facts? I'm a little confused on this.



The Fight Continues

[leez50]

Don't know if this will help, but I am going to use it in an up coming case where the Plaintiff is representing a Credit Card company that will not validate the debt, but uses procedure to overwhelm my meger brain!



18. It is a clearly established principle of law that a corporation being incorporeal and a creature of the law must be represented by an attorney. An attorney representing an artificial entity, such as the (de facto) State of Texas, must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 USC Section 612 et seq.). See Victor Rabinowitz et. al. v Robert F. Kennedy 376 US 605.

19. Failure to file said "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction, and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC §§ 219, & 951. The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious. "NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS." See Bible, Luke 16:13, Jeffery v Pounds, 67 Cal.App.3d 6, Cinema 5 v Cinerama 528 F 2d 1384, Easly v Brookline Trust 256 SW 2d 983.

20. In US v Woodly 726 F 2d 1328 and 751 F 2d 1008, it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another Department or others, is not an Article III de jure judge. And in US v Ferreira 13 How 42 it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another (not independent), is only a commissioner under a treaty.

"We (Courts) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." (emphasis added)

Cohen v Virginia 6 Wheat 264

Judges who pretend judicial power without really having it, and if they act for a foreign principal, violate 18 USC §§ 219 and 951.





See Challenge Juristiction 1