Dismissed! 2 Counts of NO Lic, Reg, Tags, Insp. Sticker

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

P.S. It took a moment to sink in Freebeme - I apologize for not giving it more thought. You noticed the date stamp on that scooter, huh? Today.

That's what's got your undies in a bunch!

The people I know are a lot more interesting than the people you know. That's why you are such a nasty little fellow.

The main thing that bothers me about Freebeme is that for acting like an attorney, he does not even grant the intelligence to the average reader to spot what is terribly wrong with his attacks. Freebeme assumes that the readers/members here are so stupid as to accept what he thinks he knows about me and suitors (courts of competent jurisdiction) above all my victims here on Suijuris who write all the nasty complaints about me. In other words he thinks that he knows about one member here, who is a suitor, who lost his home when I promised that could never happen - only to have to complain about me for that alleged suitor?

My presumption would be simply that Freebeme is an attorney. The reader should get a careful look at my Signature. There is the crux of the matter about fabricating a reality that is not, wherewhich attorneys live. One thing to keep in mind while reading my signature is that Shoonra downplays the Knights Templar as though they had very little to do with the two documents linked. Keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by Freebeme

Like not competent to write a working remedy for the foreclosure of Henry Bowman's house, not competent to get a scooter out of impound, not competent to keep a lawsuit going longer than a week (The criteria for throwing out a complaint is that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that the plaintiff could prove ANY CAUSE OF ACTION.)

Dark Mental Void Person truly is an idiot.

All I did was show a scooter bought for cash with MSO carrying a Certificate of Search that no causes civil or criminal have ever been filed against it in the US district courts. And the thought of people sui juris like you and me being competent to own things in allodium like that just twisted them into a hate frenzy about me!

Back to my point about the Signature though.

The Pope, according to the attorney theories, nullified the Magna Charta on the premise that King John could give England away to the Church of Rome - to the Pope in the Treaty of 1213 (see links in my Signature). The particular clause under attack by Lawdog and Freebeme is:

34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.

There you have it in a nutshell. But if I were to make any effort to defend myself against attorneys, I think it would be simply to examine the complaining party. Lawdog seems to think my daughter has a complaint about me? Is Lawdog my daughter? Freebeme thinks Henry Bowman has a complaint about me? Is Freebeme Henry Bowman?

Why would attorneys risk such un-attorney behavior; to reveal that they think all the members/readers here have no rules of evidence regarding hearsay? - Unless something about that scooter photo I took yesterday afternoon really, really upsets them?

Something about really, really upsetting those two is wonderfully satisfying!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog
It's what living in a democratic republic is all about, dude.

Where in "...this Constitution for the United States of America" did you find the words "democratic republic," "dude?"

By now WE live in neither a republic nor a so-called "democratic republic," "dude."

The closest thing to any law left to any American is "When in the course of human events..."

Love it or leave it, "Tory Loyalist quisling 'dude'."

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, thus, must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I hate to keep repeating myself, but some of you aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, and need something explained four or five times before it sinks in..if it ever does.

Oh I enjoy hearing you repeat yourself. What you chose to respond to and what you remained silent on speaks volume of your faith and your humanistic view in light of the professional oaths you've taken. (Yea, yea, keep your grade school excuses as to why you didn't respond to yourself...I've heard enough of them.)

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGklPFsC...p=1%26.intl=us

“I,_________________, swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly demean myself, according to the laws, as an attorney, counselor, and solicitor, and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God.”

That creates quite the moral dilemma. Oh, that's right, in some twist of logic, you can justify your position and there is no moral dilemma. Something akin to a man saying he doesn't believe in engaging in prostitution, but has no problem being a pimp.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yes, I personally believe in God. However, no one has ever proved or disproved, by sheer logic, the existence of God. Since the existence of God is a matter of faith and not subject to proof, it's debatable whether there is any such thing as "God's law." If there is no God, then obviously there's no such thing as "God's law."

On the other hand, it can be proven that man had no hand in the creation of the stars, planets or the elements of the universe.

I'm quite disappointed that someone claiming to believe in God would make such a statement. You sound like a humanist, not someone who has a belief in God. I see the proof all around me every day. I have experienced the proof personally. I have read stories of modern medical miracles to which the scientific analysis of the facts, circumstances and outcomes can provide no logical explanation and is summarily explained as a miracle Who would you attribute such miracles to?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

And even people who believe in God don't agree as to what His law is. Christians would say that God's law says if you don't believe that He sent Jesus as the savior for all mankind, you can't go to heaven. Jews and Muslims, among others, would disagree that such a doctrine is part of God's law, although they certainly believe there is such a thing as God's law. Or Yahweh's law/Allah's law, if you want to be picky about the name used for the Supreme Being.

Your comments exhibit a superficial presentation or understanding of the subject of religion. There are many laws, regardless of which religion you choose to use as an example, that are common. If you'd studied those religions and "the laws" that have been instituted since early written history, you would see the correlation (although I doubt you'd admit it). But then again, regardless of your understanding, I suppose you'd come up with some bizarre explanation for the origin of morality (in simplest terms - understanding right from wrong).

Interestingly, the more societies diverge from recognizing and observing God's laws, the more social problems they must endure. Guess that could only mean we need more man made law. Oh goodie for you and your legal associates.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Society as a whole needs to be governed by religiously neutral and secular law. God's law is what should guide your church or synagogue. But you have no right to impose what you believe to be God's law on people whose beliefs are different from your own.

Seriously, you need to study history and understand what secular means, not what you've been brainwashed to believe from law school and your clique legal circle.

This is the problem with your legal religion lawdog; in that whatever society dictates to the legislative body to pass as law is fine with you, from a professional perspective, so long as it is equally applied to all, it meets constitutional muster (which could also be changed) , etc.; personal beliefs and religion be damned.

You've made it clear you hold this view regardless of the extent a constitution or statute may be at odds with God's law, in whom you claim to believe. Which is why I enjoy hearing your repeat yourself; it's all so ironic and paradoxically inconsistent.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by indio007

Annotated statutes are not the law that is passed by the legislature. It's the interpretation of the statutes via various holdings of the court , in very selectively published cases.

It's the readers digest version of the Statutes at large. Having read through annotated statutes, they very selectively choose the cites so as to narrow the range of acceptable legal interpretation as it relates to common law. The common law is superimposed over the statutory law.
In effect , the annotated statutes are decisions
filtered for the benefit of the BAR. It's been held that corporations and governments can publicly lie and not be liable. It's a Given fact that someone has no cause of action for a corporation lying if it is not under some obligation to due so. The BAR could print blatant lies and misrepresentations, just as long as it's in the best financial interests of the corporation and is intended to lead to profits. Then everything is A-OK.

Annotated statutes are filtered crap.

As usual, you're so wrong it's hard to know where to start.

Ga. Code. section 1-1-1 says:

The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws prepared by the Code Revision Commission and the Michie Company pursuant to a contract entered into on June 19, 1978, is enacted and shall have the effect of statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia. The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state pursuant to such contract and when so published shall be known and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

[Emphasis added]

I was referring to the statute part of the O.C.G.A. being prima facie evidence of the laws enacted by the legislature. The caselaw annotations are just that...citations to court decisions involving that particular code section.

The legislature says you're dead wrong. And BTW, LexisNexis publishing recently bought the Michie Company, so they are successors in interest to Michie's contract with the State of Georgia.

And statutes passed by the legislature trump the common law in case of conflict.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog
Society as a whole needs to be governed by religiously neutral and secular law.

Why would you describe the "secular" in terms of "religiously" "neutral."

Adv

religiously -

by religion; "religiously inspired art"

free dictionary,com

secularly neutral "by religion?"




And again it gets to be quite annoying that you incessantly attempt to pass off ad hominem fallacious logical rhetorical artifice--which, ulimately, seems your only functional recourse--as substantive refutation of something you can only define on the same level.

But then, you are here to rankle, annoy, and proselytize.

How is it you deny that your so called "at law" "practice" is other than religion?

On the walls of the Cook County Circuit Court's court rooms is the motto "In God We Trust."

An assembled congregation rises upon the invocation of the approach of a figure garbed in clerical cassock who sits behind a raised altar, hearing confessions, hearing prayers, answering prayers, hearing the pleadings of penitents, granting dispensations, proscribing penitences, taking up collections, performing subtle transubstantion, disrtibuting sacraments, etc..

What is a "penitentiary?"

What is the room wherein Monks sleep called?

Are "monks" other than "penitents?"

[ezrhythm]

MRG, your prose is quite excellent!!!

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You have it bass-ackwards, boychik.

Anything that appears in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, now published by LexisNexis under contract with the State of Georgia, is prima facie evidence of the law as passed by the legislature, and that it was done with all the requisite formalities.

If you or any other party were to argue that something in the O.C.G.A. books was NOT passed with the requisite formalities, or that the law which actually was passed differs in some way from what appears in the O.C.G.A. books, then you would bear the burden of proof.

Prima Facie Evidence is not good enough for me. Probably for you though. Who is this boychik you are daydreaming about?

Also, "and that it was done with all the requisite formalities" is not good enough either, especially coming from a dicta such as yourself.

The only way I would bear the burden of proof is if I was the proponent of the rule. So, if you would like to push some more 'dicta' my way, I would love for you to try and have me buy your dicta. You are a typical atwister, and an expert at buying prima facia hearsay evidence.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

Why would you describe the "secular" in terms of "religiously" "neutral."

secularly neutral "by religion?"




And again it gets to be quite annoying that you incessantly attempt to pass off ad hominem fallacious logical rhetorical artifice--which, ulimately, seems your only functional recourse--as substantive refutation of something you can only define on the same level.

But then, you are here to rankle, annoy, and proselytize.

How is it you deny that your so called "at law" "practice" is other than religion?

On the walls of the Cook County Circuit Court's court rooms is the motto "In God We Trust."

An assembled congregation rises upon the invocation of the approach of a figure garbed in clerical cassock who sits behind a raised altar, hearing confessions, hearing prayers, answering prayers, hearing the pleadings of penitents, granting dispensations, proscribing penitences, taking up collections, performing subtle transubstantion, disrtibuting sacraments, etc..

What is a "penitentiary?"

What is the room wherein Monks sleep called?

Are "monks" other than "penitents?"

Good question.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Prima Facie Evidence is not good enough for me. Probably for you though. Who is this boychik you are daydreaming about?

Also, "and that it was done with all the requisite formalities" is not good enough either, especially coming from a dicta such as yourself.

The only way I would bear the burden of proof is if I was the proponent of the rule. So, if you would like to push some more 'dicta' my way, I would love for you to try and have me buy your dicta. You are a typical atwister, and an expert at buying prima facia hearsay evidence.

When someone whose opinion matters...like a judge...agrees with you, let me know.

Until then, you're just a wingnut.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Prima Facie Evidence is not good enough for me. Probably for you though. Who is this boychik you are daydreaming about?

Also, "and that it was done with all the requisite formalities" is not good enough either, especially coming from a dicta such as yourself.

The only way I would bear the burden of proof is if I was the proponent of the rule. So, if you would like to push some more 'dicta' my way, I would love for you to try and have me buy your dicta. You are a typical atwister, and an expert at buying prima facia hearsay evidence.

moishanb,

I dont know about you, but I'm not the least bit interested in Lawdog's "dicta" I also get the impression he's saving himself for "boychicks" and "judges"