Won the battle, now what?

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

An insider from the FBI that I used to do computer work for told me a few months back that they were going to be creating a category in their national database for state sovrans. This way in an encounter with the law you would simply give your true name and status and upon lookup they would simply apologize for the inconvience and you would be on your way. (Of course barring you didn't just kill somebody or something like that...)

..J

What's a "sovran"? Is that anything like a "sovereign"?

Anyway, there's enough baloney in this post to open your own deli. No court has ever accepted the "sovereign citizen" movement theories. Ever. Not even one. No way in hell would the FBI fall for a bunch of bumcombe like that.

You really need to learn to keep your lies at least plausible, you know.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

No court has ever accepted the "sovereign citizen" movement theories. Ever. Not even one.

WRONG!!!

One only needs to invoke Common Law Jurisdiction.

AWAY FROM HERE WITH ANTI SUI JURIS POSTS!!!

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

WRONG!!!

One only needs to invoke Common Law Jurisdiction.

AWAY FROM HERE WITH ANTI SUI JURIS POSTS!!!

Yes, just can't have anybody pointing out the massive holes in your inane theories. That makes you want to throw a hissy fit, doesn't it?

Or are you one of the snake oil peddlers who is afraid that you might lose some business due to me showing the potential marks...er, I mean "customers" the truth that your arguments have never, ever worked in any court in this country?

What exactly are you afraid of, kid? People who are secure in their beliefs are never afraid of spirited, vigorous debate.

It's only folks who have something to hide who want to keep things entirely one-sided.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

No, the D.A. is not above the law. However, some other law enforcement/prosecutorial agency would have to arrest and indict the D.A. You as a private citizen cannot.

One of the advantages of living in a republic is that, when your public servants refuse to represent you properly, you have an obligation is to step in to perform the necessary task yourself. The job of the grand jury is to make sure government doesn't overstep its' bounds.

Originally Posted by Iowa Court Rules, Rule 2.3 The Grand Jury

It is made the special duty of the grand jury to inquire into:
(1) The case of every person imprisoned in the detention facilities of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted.
(2) The condition and management of the public prisons, county institutions and places of detention within the county.
(3) The unlawful misconduct in office in the county of public officers and employees.

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IowaLaw.html

A major problem at present would seem that most of these grand jurors chose not to read the court rules and really have no special desire to challenge the court officer who presents indictments for them to consider. In addition these people do not have a clue about the function they are supposed to be performing. If you desire to talk to them about the misconduct of the DA/county attorney you have to get the DA's approval to gain access to them.

One fellow locally sent registered letters to each of the grand jurors via the county attorneys' office. None of these letters were delivered.

Seems like when you bring up grand juries attorneys start getting nervous. Exactly why is that?

Trooper2ls: Sounds like you had your act together more than most. Does NY have a similar rule as posted above regarding oversite duties of the GJ?

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yes, just can't have anybody pointing out the massive holes in your inane theories.
Not a theory, it's a fact.

That makes you want to throw a hissy fit, doesn't it?
Fit? Were you abused as a child when you raised your voice?

...your arguments have never, ever worked in any court in this country?
And you are ALL KNOWING to make such a statement?

What exactly are you afraid of, kid? People who are secure in their beliefs are never afraid of spirited, vigorous debate.
The fear you are sensing is emitting from the one who has not accepted my bet.
Besides, you don't show yourself to be up for debate, only interference and trolling.

It's only folks who have something to hide who want to keep things entirely one-sided.

For instance, on a forum discussing the commandments of God and a troll enters the conversation with posts stating, "God doesn't exist", "Why do are you keeping this conversation one sided?"

[Lawdog]

Poor ezrhythm. He can't read, either.

I never said "God does not exist." Quite the contrary, I said I personally believe in God.

What I said was, the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven from a factual, logical point of view.

This is apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Many intelligent people believe in God. Many intelligent people do not.

Either way, it's a matter of faith.

P.S. If your theories have any merit, please cite one reported appellate case, from ANY court, state or federal, that has endorsed any of the theories of the "sovereign citizen" movement.

By appellate case, I mean from a court of a level higher than a court where trials are held. Trial court verdicts carry no precedential weight.

But any case, from any state supreme court, U.S. Supreme Court, state court of appeals, or federal court of appeals.

Just one.

Put up or shut up.

[mrg]

At-law BAR Association closed-shop brothels are hardly Constitutional republican courts of law.

Is the "judge" "the court?"

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 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.

I'm telling you how to fight but not promising victory.

You actually insist that people "cite" "court" "cases" as validation of law, my boy?

How many of lawdog's beloved "court" "cases" have included, at center stage, a "judge" whose "salary" is "paid" by the "plaintiff?"

How many of lawdog's beloved "court" "cases" have a prosecuting "attorney," and "judge" whose "salary" are "paid" by the "plaintiff?"

How many of lawdog's beloved "court" "cases" have included a prosecuting "attorney," a "judge," and a "defense" "attorney" whose "salary" are "paid" by the "plaintiff?"

How many of lawdog's beloved "court" "cases" have included a prosecuting "attorney," a "judge," and a "defense" "attorney" whose "salary" are not only "paid" by the "plaintiff," but all belong to the same private monopoly for-profit trade guild, that presumes to give them all "license" to "practice" [at] "law?"

Is lawdog's first legal concern lawdog's client, or lawdog's "court?"



Your dog and pony show (donkey and court-e-san show) "courts" are meaningless, irrelevant, deceitful gaming casinos, at best.

They are slave markets, brothels, killing floors, and dung heaps at worst.

Live it up, my boy.

Try the ribs, son, I hear they are the best!


Here come da judge, here come da judge!
OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ!
All Rise!!
Here come da judge, kiddo!

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yes, just can't have anybody pointing out the massive holes in your inane theories. That makes you want to throw a hissy fit, doesn't it?

Or are you one of the snake oil peddlers who is afraid that you might lose some business due to me showing the potential marks...er, I mean "customers" the truth that your arguments have never, ever worked in any court in this country?

What exactly are you afraid of, kid? People who are secure in their beliefs are never afraid of spirited, vigorous debate.

It's only folks who have something to hide who want to keep things entirely one-sided.

So says the man who refused to answer a few simple questions in another thread after agreeing to do so, and when confronted about the questions, he claimed he answered them. However, nearly all the questions were not properly addressed.

I would say your above comment is an exact reflection of yourself.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

What I said was, the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven from a factual, logical point of view.

Such arguments are asinine and hold no ground.

Asking someone to prove the existence of God is illogical and erroneous. Such a requirement imposes a mathematical impossiblity. It's tantamount to asking someone to prove infinity. Therefore, any man who asks another to perform such impossibilities is of unsound mind or deliberately attempting to seclude one from his/her rightful place in existence.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Such arguments are asinine and hold no ground.

Asking someone to prove the existence of God is illogical and erroneous. Such a requirement imposes a mathematical impossiblity. It's tantamount to asking someone to prove infinity. Therefore, any man who asks another to perform such impossibilities is of unsound mind or deliberately attempting to seclude one from his/her rightful place in existence.

Your response is what is asinine.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Belief that God exists, or belief that God does not exist, is merely that...a belief. Not demonstrable fact.

That you and others here have such trouble understanding this simple concept shows a profound lack of any real intellectual development.