Incorporate this into your paperwork for court?

Petitioner speaks on behalf of his wife, as directed by his biblical beliefs in the Holy Word of God, specifically Ephesians 5:23- 25, which states: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Petitioner demands that this court or any party in this action make him aware of any thing, statute, code, writing, or law that subjects the jurisdiction of Almighty God and the Holy Word of God to be inferior to the jurisdiction of this or any other court. If that is not done immediately, before any further statements are made by the parties or the court, Petitioner speaks as Henry Franklin Bowman, and on behalf of his wife, Anita Bath Daily Bowman, non obstante.

Whatcha think?

I am incorporating this into a document that I am getting ready to file.

HB

[iamfreeru2]

I like it HB!!!!

I like it as well. I have found the response to statements of the sort tend to depend largely upon the judges attitude as to whether you get railroaded or not. (we have a "holy roller" in our group who quotes chapter/verse in ALL his proceedings with little success where it counts) (NO offence meant by "holy roller")

The first and foremost in any court proceeding is as you say "challenge JD". Whilst God is supreme, YOU got "contracted" which is why YOU are being summoned. Carefully review everything, check to make sure there arent any contracts and you prefacing documentation included cancellation of all contracts including those implied, etc.

IF you are in fact "sovereign" then you can use title 28 "Sovereign immunities" to void JD or void the assumed contract(s). But it tends to open new issues.

Originally Posted by rocket750

IF you are in fact "sovereign" then you can use title 28 "Sovereign immunities" to void JD or void the assumed contract(s). But it tends to open new issues.

Can you tell us more?

HB

[squirrel]

Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters

Table of contents for Chapter 544

544.21 Incorporation, pleading and proof.

In actions by or against a corporation, domestic or foreign, it shall be a sufficient averment of its incorporation to allege, in substance, that the party is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the designated state, country, or place. Unless the adverse party shall specifically aver that the plaintiff or defendant is not a corporation, no proof thereof shall be required at the trial.

HIST: (9271) RL s 4148 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.

[squirrel]

A hint from mark stevens work.


ABA Standard 11-2.1 Prosecutorial disclosure

(a) The prosecution should, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, disclose to the defense the following information and material and permit inspection, copying, testing, and photographing of disclosed documents or tangible objects:
(i) All written and all oral statements of the defendant or of any codefendant that are within the possession or control of the prosecution and that relate to the subject matter of the offense charged, and any documents relating to the acquisition of such statements.
(ii) The names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecution to have information concerning the offense charged, together with all written statements of any such person that are within the possession or control of the prosecution and that relate to the subject matter of the offense charged. The prosecution should also identify the persons it intends to call as witnesses at trial.
(iii) The relationship, if any, between the prosecution and any witness it intends to call at trial, including the nature and circumstances of any agreement, understanding or representation between the prosecution and the witness that constitutes an inducement for the cooperation or testimony of the witness.
(iv) Any reports or written statements of experts made in connection with the case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons and of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons. With respect to each expert whom the prosecution intends to call as a witness at trial, the prosecutor should also furnish to the defense a curriculum vitae and a written description of the substance of the proposed testimony of the expert, the expert’s opinion, and the underlying basis of that opinion.
(v) Any tangible objects, including books, papers, documents, photographs, buildings, places, or any other objects, which pertain to the case or which were obtained for or belong to the defendant. The prosecution should also identify which of these tangible objects it intends to offer as evidence at trial.
(vi) Any record of prior criminal convictions, pending charges, or probationary status of the defendant or of any codefendant, and insofar as known to the prosecution, any record of convictions, pending charges, or probationary status that may be used to impeachment of any witness to be called by either party at trial.
(vii) Any material, documents, or information relating to lineups, showups, and picture or voice identifications in relation to the case.
(viii) Any material or information within the prosecutor’s possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the defendant.
(b) If the prosecution intends to use character, reputation, or other act of evidence, the prosecution should notify the defense of that intention and of the substance of the evidence to be used.
(c) If the defendant’s conversations or premises have been subjected to electronic surveillance (including wiretapping) in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case, the prosecution should inform the defense of that fact.
(d) If any tangible object which the object which the prosecutor intends to offer at trial was obtained through a search and seizure, the prosecution should disclose to the defense any information, documents, or other material relating to the acquisition of such objects.

emphasis mine.

[squirrel]

heres more, because you just never know what way they will go.

Uniform rules of criminal procedure rule 421
PART 2

DISCLOSURE BY PARTIES

RULE 421. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO ALLOW ACCESS
(a) Duty of prosecuting attorney 11-2.1(a), (b)(iii), (d), 11-2.2(b)

(b) Exceptions

(1) Legal work product 11-2.6(a)

(2) Pending motion for protective order

(3) Protective order

(i) Risk of harm, intimidation, or bribery; continuing

investigation 11-2.5(b), 11-2.6(b), 11-4.4

(ii) Protecting evidentiary value 11-4.4

(4) Excision 11-4.5

(c) Continuing duty 11-4.2

(d) Matters held by other governmental personnel 11-2.4

(e) Sanctions for noncompliance 11-4.7

(f) In-camera proceedings 11-4.6


RULE 421. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO ALLOW ACCESS.


(a) Duty of prosecuting attorney. Upon the defendant's written request, the prosecuting attorney, except as provided in subdivision (b), shall allow access at any reasonable time to all matters within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control which relate in any way to the case, including statements, [portions of grand jury minutes or transcripts,] [law enforcement officer] reports, expert reports, reports on prospective jurors, papers, photographs, objects, and places, and the identity of persons having information relating to the case. The prosecuting attorney's obligation extends to matters within the possession or control of any member of the prosecuting attorney's staff and of any official or employee of this State who has participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly reports or with reference to the particular case has reported to the prosecuting attorney's office. In affording this access, the prosecuting attorney shall allow the defendant at any reasonable time and in any reasonable manner to inspect, photograph, copy, or have reasonable tests made. If a scientific test or experiment of any matter may preclude or impair any further tests or experiments, the prosecuting attorney shall give the defendant and any person known or believed to have an interest in the matter reasonable notice and opportunity to be present and to have an expert observe or participate in the test or experiment.




RELATED STANDARDS: 11-2.1(a), (b)(iii), (d), 11-2.2(b)

[re-ality]

squirrel
great stuff, thanks. Have to get that legaland book, already followed your lead with strategic withdrawal, so thanks twice.

[squirrel]

When I was fighting a court case two years ago here in minnesota I asked the usurper behind the bench what type of proceeding it was, admiralty, maritime, equity or comman law he said none them, then said I was in a statutory law proceeding, the library is down the hall, well needless to say we know there is'nt one. sooo, if it's statutory they want well here it is.

1400.6700 DISCOVERY.
1400.7100 RIGHTS AND RESPONSABILITIES OF PARTIES.
1400.7300 RULES OF EVIDENCE.
1400.7700 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES'S CONDUCT.
1400.8607 RULES OF EVIDENCE.
544.21 INCORPORATION, AND PLEADING AND PROOF.

THESE ARE ALL MINNESOTA STATUTES JUST CROSS REFERENCE TO YOUR "SO CALLED STATE''

NOWHERE TO RUN TO NOW BABY, NOWHERE TO HIDE, NOWHERE TO HIDE !

[idknow]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters

Table of contents for Chapter 544

544.21 Incorporation, pleading and proof.

In actions by or against a corporation, domestic or foreign, it shall be a sufficient averment of its incorporation to allege, in substance, that the party is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the designated state, country, or place. Unless the adverse party shall specifically aver that the plaintiff or defendant is not a corporation, no proof thereof shall be required at the trial.

HIST: (9271) RL s 4148 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.

This reminds me of my affadavit that i filed when my car was taken (see my early posts on forum)

I told the cop i was not a corporation.

i told the judges i was not a corporation.

i wrote that i was not a corporation in the papers i filed

i didnt argue

i was railroaded, ignored and still lost.

this is truly a corrupt city who stole my property.