Attorney Scott (Lawdog) ?

[2tim215]

Originally Posted by Druwdeadeng

Ok. Perhaps that choice of wording was a bit sloppy. I can certainly see that it's a bit of a throwaway turn of phrase. Let me see if I can better explain what I meant.

"Otherwise just not going to work," as I intended the phrase, is really a combination of the first two points on the outdated laws and procedural incorrectness. But, more closely, I suppose I should have stated that it would more properly refer to the incorrect application of existing law and procedure.

Cherry picking portions of statutes/regulations outside of context, incorporation of common law theories when the common law has been superceded by a properly passed statute, etc.

Again, I have no animus toward any of the posters on this board, and I will certainly attempt to be productive in my posts. I'll happily try to offer further detail if I can, and will gladly say that I don't when I don't.

I'm a lawyer, I don't know everything about the law, and I'm pretty sure that no one else does either. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not. Hopefully, you all can appreciate my input and take it into account when you're processing your options for progressing through some legal proceeding.

Cheers.
DD

Are you claimaing that attorneys don't do this too? I know for a fact that they do. Sometimes due to a defendant (due to his lack of knowledge of the system or inexperience) and who cannot afford good representation and thus has to do it him or herself, or more specifically does't know how to challenge a particular outlandish claim made by some "prestigious" member of the bar, it is allowed by the by the judge (his fellow bar member). How many times have "ProSe's" been right in cases, but have lost due to "technicalities" but yet try and put for a "technicality" on your behalf and watch the judge throw it out faster than you can say "uncle"? Shouldn't our system of law be based more on "equity" and "justice" than it should be someone who knows the intricacies of how the system works thus pretty much removing the ability of a poor "laymen" receiving justice? Simple matters such as getting banks to produce "signed documents" to support their claims for example? Yet an ordinary person, God forbid if he doesn't have any signed documents to prove up his claim. Yes, there might be a few decent attorneys out there (youself being one perhaps) but try and find one who will take on any banks, lenders and try and help the little guy. Any who were honest enough to try and take any of these guys on, would likely risk disbarment and criminal charges against them. We have a very unbalanced legal system and those who make it up are pretty corrupt and use their "knowledge" to keep those with power, in power. Who is it that has unlimited resources and can afford to have a team of 400-500 dollar attorneys at their disposal? Sure not us.

2tim2:15
2 Timothy 2:15 ( KJV ) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by 2tim215

Are you claimaing that attorneys don't do this too? I know for a fact that they do. Sometimes due to a defendant (due to his lack of knowledge of the system or inexperience) and who cannot afford good representation and thus has to do it him or herself, or more specifically does't know how to challenge a particular outlandish claim made by some "prestigious" member of the bar, it is allowed by the by the judge (his fellow bar member). How many times have "ProSe's" been right in cases, but have lost due to "technicalities" but yet try and put for a "technicality" on your behalf and watch the judge throw it out faster than you can say "uncle"? Shouldn't our system of law be based more on "equity" and "justice" than it should be someone who knows the intricacies of how the system works thus pretty much removing the ability of a poor "laymen" receiving justice? Simple matters such as getting banks to produce "signed documents" to support their claims for example? Yet an ordinary person, God forbid if he doesn't have any signed documents to prove up his claim. Yes, there might be a few decent attorneys out there (youself being one perhaps) but try and find one who will take on any banks, lenders and try and help the little guy. Any who were honest enough to try and take any of these guys on, would likely risk disbarment and criminal charges against them. We have a very unbalanced legal system and those who make it up are pretty corrupt and use their "knowledge" to keep those with power, in power. Who is it that has unlimited resources and can afford to have a team of 400-500 dollar attorneys at their disposal? Sure not us.

2tim2:15
2 Timothy 2:15 ( KJV ) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The attachment shows one that is 'perhaps' on the side of the little guy.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Very Good Point!

Thats exactly what goes on MOST OF THE TIME in court. Its ALL cherry-picking. An amazing amount of fruit is collected this way- I got charged with several felonies based ONLY on 'bits-and-pieces' of law, throw everything they can and hope something sticks.

In my case not ONE charge was correct. Not "I didnt do it", but "no cause of action, no offense stated". I have seen this OVER and OVER and OVER again.

So again the job of the attorney is to make arguements that promote their agenda. Wich is why the contributions on this forum so far have been so useless- it doesnt help to "win" a debate here, the purpose is to learn remedy- something attorneys in the real world run from like the plague. (like doctors do from healing, btw)

Unless the purpose is to derail, and harm...which has been too obvious.

But I will add one thing: money makes it worse with these vultures. People are still better off pro per or maybe with a free standby, 400-500 hour is just to milk the situation.

[indio007]

The thing about the attorneys that post on forums is they only give you one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Talk to attorney and filing an answer is great is advice. It sure leaves alot out though.

The failure to disclose that being represented by an attorney waives rights by making you a ward of the court is unethical for starters.

They also leave out the most important details , such as filing a counterclaim for libel and slander and bonding the opposing side.

You should do this in every case you intend to contest.

The greatest lies are by omission.

[mertensv16]

Farmer, you're definitely in category (a).

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by indio007

The thing about the attorneys that post on forums is they only give you one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Talk to attorney and filing an answer is great is advice. It sure leaves alot out though.

The failure to disclose that being represented by an attorney waives rights by making you a ward of the court is unethical for starters.

They also leave out the most important details , such as filing a counterclaim for libel and slander and bonding the opposing side.

You should do this in every case you intend to contest.

The greatest lies are by omission.

Wow, more insanity from the peanut gallery.

1) Merely hiring an attorney does NOT make you a ward of the court, legally incompetent, or anything of that nature. That's "sovrun citizun" myth, nothing more.

2) Counterclaim for libel and slander? LOL...it's almost impossible to sue someone for defamation over statements made in pleadings. They have a strong presumption of being privileged, for reasons that are obvious if you stop to think about it for a second.

3) "Bonding" the opposing side? More "sovrun" gibberish.

You're definitely in mertensv16 category (f).

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Though in the current #2, you suggest the use of 'case law' as if the 'case law' were somehow more important that the actual written law; with that in mind, I would have to question your sincerity in regard to desiring to accomplish #1.

A statute or constitution can always trump caselaw. That is, if a case reaches a result based upon a particular rule of decision, that rule can be changed for future cases by passing a statute or (if the case involves a point of constitutional law) by amending the constitution.

But if the issue boils down to what you think the written law means and what the courts say it means, which interpretation do you think will prevail in the judicial system? And since you're presumably going to be litigating in the judicial system, which interpretation should you expect the court to follow, especially if they've heard your interpretation many times before and rejected it every time?

The reason I cite cases is to show what the prevailing law is in certain areas. Sometimes it's not necessary; for example, if someone were to claim that a will signed in State X needs three witnesses to be valid, I could simply cite the applicable State X statute, which would reveal that it takes only two. On the other hand, if someone were to claim that since the constitution says that Congress can't lower a federal judge's salary while in office, it follows that the judge's salary isn't subject to the income tax, I would cite a couple of Supreme Court cases that hold to the contrary.

Like it or not, caselaw is part of the law, and unless you can give a court a good reason why it doesn't or shouldn't apply, it's what a court is going to follow. Maybe you can distinguish your case on the facts. Maybe you can persuade the court that the prevailing rule is outdated and shouldn't be followed in your case. If you can't do either of these, however, for Heaven's sake don't make an argument that has been continually rejected for the last 30 years and characterized as frivolous.

[2tim215]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

The attachment shows one that is 'perhaps' on the side of the little guy.

Jerry Carlos

That may be one of the few and far between Jerry.

I'd like to see one who's gone up against a bank or a the IRS. Probably will happen when hell freezes over, Oh, that's right I forgot, all those people are always right, just as all the popel who are on this site are wrong with thier crazy theories, lol. They're attorneys and have studied law. That autmatically makes them right. Forget about justice and that it's not served a lot of the time.

Why would someone want to "represented" by someone who charges you a tremendous amount of money on an hourly basis which is essentially "open-ended", there are no "guarantees" and they are actually "officers of the court" which interpreted means they are in subjection to the "Chief" of the court if you will, the judge and are not in subjection to the one who is paying them "gobs and gobs" of money.

Yet we are told to "hire" an attorney who is responsible to someone other than you and is likely to tell you to "pay up". Who needs to pay someone to tell them that? About the only thing that they might be able to do for you is to "plea bargain" with the opposing council and the judge if you've committed a crime I suppose (they won't talk to you privately if you're not part of their "club" unless you somehow have got them over a pretty huge barrel). Even if you have a "good" case, it is lkley you'll run out of money in order to see it through. So anyone who has a problem with the big corporations are at a huge disadvantage, one that's so big that it practically insurmountable. It takes "a miracle of God" to move mountains (as that's what those corporations are akin to) which He sometimes does occasionally and that's always a great victory.

The 400-500 attorneys are only available to the Elite who mitigate the costs by having their attorner firms on "retainer" which they can justify because they are so often involved in lawsuits. "Just turn the sharks loose".

2tim215
2 Timothy 2:15 ( KJV ) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[2tim215]

duplicate/deleted

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Wow, more insanity from the peanut gallery.

1) Merely hiring an attorney does NOT make you a ward of the court, legally incompetent, or anything of that nature. That's "sovrun citizun" myth, nothing more.

2) Counterclaim for libel and slander? LOL...it's almost impossible to sue someone for defamation over statements made in pleadings. They have a strong presumption of being privileged, for reasons that are obvious if you stop to think about it for a second.

3) "Bonding" the opposing side? More "sovrun" gibberish.

You're definitely in mertensv16 category (f).

1. why do I need a representative to protect my rights unless I was incapable of doing it myself? However like I posted in another thread the attorney's first duty is to the court and public justice. The attorney is a double agent. Letting an agent with duty to a third party represent you when the conflict is with the third party speaks for itself. When You subordinate yourself to your attorney to subordinate to his master as well.

2. Who said anything about pleadings? The charges and supporting affidavit in written form as a public record added with reading them in a public forum are the libel and slander. Issuing the charges is not a pleading. It's making the record. They make an accusation that can damage your character and reputation and they make it public.The issue that makes it an open and shut case is you are not the debtor, you are the accommodation party for the debtor . Plaintiff knowingly behaves as if it is you who incurred the charge/ All the while knowing you are just guaranteeing payment of the debt.

3. Bonding is gibberish !!!! LOL, either you don't know about it or your covering up. Bonding is integral to the court system. I could bury this page in court rules and statutes explicitly referring to bonding of cases.Or maybe you are trying to get by with your BS by being technical. Does "Sufficient surety" ring a bell? As evidenced by a bond of course. Appeal bond, Appearance bonds , bail bonds, surety bonds, supersedeas bonds, indemnity bonds, special bonds, general bonds etc.. i guess those are all just patriots nonsense. I guess we should dismiss the Federal rules of Civil and Criminal procedure as patriot crap.

You can't hide it . Court is one big bonding frenzy.

Go read the clerkes praxis off of google books it would do you some good if you really don't know what's up. I suspect you do know and your not about to reveal the Achilles heel.