UCC believe it or not

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Whoosh!!!!

My point goes sailing right over Jerry Carlos' head.

Read VERY carefully this time: There's no need for a court to issue a gag order to hide the truth when a "sovrun citizun" wins a case.

The courts are all corrupt, according to you guys. A corrupt judge is going to rule any way he wants to, damn the facts and the law.

So, instead of ruling in favor of the "sovrun citizun" and order it sealed, rule AGAINST the "sovrun citizun" and order it published.

Looks much less suspicious than ordering a case to be sealed and the parties subject to a gag order.

Think, man, think! Exercise your brain!

Over Lawdogs head... he can't even make up his mind on what specifically he is talking about.
Hmmmm.
Think man, exercise your brain, if that is possible.

Jerry Carlos

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Steel

There seem to be some nay sayers here,
I posted a Memorandum (small pic below and 2.5mb pdf in my forum http://www.ridewithit.com/)
for whomever believes they can once and for all crush UCC doctrine
this is an something I did physically hang in a Courthouse on a public board in the main corridor,
It hung for 3 days.

Prove it wrong and I will never post in this UCC thread again.

note Sui Juris in lower right corner

AH HA! The truth shall set you free! It also cuts like a double edge sword!

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If the courts are as corrupt as you wingnuts claim, there's no reason to use "do not publish" orders to "hide the truth" from the people.

Lawdog, I've heard dozens, maybe more than a hundred, crazy explanations for court decisons.

One is that somehow one of the lawyers is sending "Masonic" hand signals to the judge. We're supposed to have learned all these secret Masonic signals in law school. Must have been the class I missed when I had the flu. If Masonic hand signals did it all, why did we spend a flaming fortune on those thick law books??
And you'd think the losing lawyer in the case might also have known the Masonic signals, wouldn't you?

One, which seemed satisfactory to David Full Colon Miller, was that, oh yes, he had won cases all over the country. Every time he stepped into a courtroom. Hundreds of cases. But you could never look them up because, after the judge was somehow forced against his will to give the win to Miller, the judge would order the file and all the docket references of the case erased. ...... Miller didn't explain how come his own client's copy of everything also vanished. Miller also didn't explain why he could never name even one satisfied customer.

In tax cases, a very cute excuse: The judge is afraid of going against the IRS for fear of a tax audit.
The judge is, of course, paid a fixed and known sum by the govt and his other financial arrangements were pretty much made public when he was up for Senate confirmation, so an audit doesn't seem like such a threat to him. The IRS loses in court, somewhere, every day (and probably several times a day). Yet when is the last time you or anyone heard of a federal judge being nailed for tax offenses??

The list can go on.

You'd think, when DiM or someone else, flashes a paper that's supposed to show a win in court that, being in the court files and therefore an accessible document, there are no privacy issues, and, being res judicata, there's no concern about the case being disturbed. Yet DiM blanks out everything useful (or verifiable). Other times DiM very conspicuously comes up with a pleading from a court file -- with all the stamps and bar codes to show it came from the courthouse file -- but won't show us the judge's decision, even though the same court file would have a copy of it, which I suppose is his indirect admission that his argument failed the real test.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

A corrupt judge is going to rule any way he wants to, damn the facts and the law.

'tis true...and everyone is corrupt on this earth, so...the more power, the more corrupt.

Just the fact that charges are routinely issued by judicial authority, only to later be dismissed for error, shows an immediate level of corruption- we'd ha' thunk that by now an experienced judge would have learned enough to avoid making the same 'mistakes' over and over again- but somehow, mysteriously, the same show happens time and again.

Anyone who doesnt kick and scream gets screwed. What happened to the duty of care and justice- its supposed to be judges JOB to exclude unwarranted charges without being asked!

"frame and railroad express, all aboard..."

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Steel

There seem to be some nay sayers here,
I posted a Memorandum (small pic below and 2.5mb pdf in my forum http://www.ridewithit.com/)
for whomever believes they can once and for all crush UCC doctrine
this is an something I did physically hang in a Courthouse on a public board in the main corridor,
It hung for 3 days.

Prove it wrong and I will never post in this UCC thread again.




note Sui Juris in lower right corner

Typical wingnut stuff, starting with the typical misreading of what the Erie case actually decided.

In other words, you start with a fallacious premise, and only get worse from there. Your "Memorandum" isn't worth the paper it's written on, I don't care where it was posted or for how many days. I could post my mom's potato salad recipe on a courthouse bulletin board, and I bet it would stay there at least three days. Wouldn't make it legally relevant. What you posted isn't legally relevant or binding either.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Typical wingnut stuff, starting with the typical misreading of what the Erie case actually decided.

In other words, you start with a fallacious premise, and only get worse from there. Your "Memorandum" isn't worth the paper it's written on, I don't care where it was posted or for how many days. I could post my mom's potato salad recipe on a courthouse bulletin board, and I bet it would stay there at least three days. Wouldn't make it legally relevant. What you posted isn't legally relevant or binding either.

Lawdog. Specifically what, within that which he posted is, according to you, to be found not 'legal' and how is that 'specific what' not 'legal'? What would be required of his posted item, to make it both 'legal' and 'lawful'?

Jerry Carlos

[Shoonra]

I think the document in the picture is the same, in more readable form, as this:
http://thetruthstore.blogspot.com/20...thorities.html

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You'd think, when DiM or someone else, flashes a paper that's supposed to show a win in court that, being in the court files and therefore an accessible document, there are no privacy issues, and, being res judicata, there's no concern about the case being disturbed. Yet DiM blanks out everything useful (or verifiable). Other times DiM very conspicuously comes up with a pleading from a court file -- with all the stamps and bar codes to show it came from the courthouse file -- but won't show us the judge's decision, even though the court file would a copy of it, which I suppose is his indirect admission that his argument failed the real test.

What I can show you is that the judge is not a judge at all - you know that Shoonra! The judge is an attorney.

Which brings to mind the amusing anecdote where the suitor got the country bumpkin "judge" to explain he was an attorney - even put his Attorney Registration # on the record; only to write his own letter of recusal from the case prior to trial for "Conflict of Interest".

If you cannot understand that falsely branding a man "pro se" for not wanting into your private club proves the court system is private, then you wasted a lot of money on tuition and the wrong textbooks.

I just enjoy resorting to the same old wins Shoonra - like you saying that John Suthers is Attorney General in Colorado.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

It is right there in front of you - Attorney #5430 Mary J. Mullarkey is confirming that John Suthers took 90 days instead of the 30 days allowed by law to file his oath of office with the Secretary of State. The office of Attorney General is now vacant.

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

But you like to think because your private attorney club is so big, formed upon the Pope nullifying the Magna Charta in your own confused mind - as you admit that King John was not right to give away his nation on religious whimsey anyway, that you and your Brethren are a public law system? That is a laugh.

And by the way, the real effect of Erie was Brandeis casting aspersions on all case law between 1840 Swift and 1938 - which was after the effective bankruptcy of the US corporation in 1933. So since 1938 no judge has had to pay much attention to any case decisions and opinions outside the scope of bankruptcy and receivership. Just get a load of the attached letter - abolishing the county courts in 1933 in Colorado.

There is a member here who offered me $100 and all she has - either she would pawn it and send whatever she got - all her "valuables" or she could pack them up and ship them to me with her $100 if only I would help her become a suitor. The only people here calling the others nutjobs are attorners Shoonra - except maybe Codee - back in his new LittleBrother handle. And there is something terribly wrong with that guy - just saying that based on his need to keep getting back on board until he gets banished again...

My point is that when one is outside the scope of Erie Doctrine - and the 1933 "bankruptcy" of the US one can comprehend the common law in assize, outside the scope of attorneys. Like that attachment about abolishing the county courts in Colorado. Well then... what is that downtown calling itself county court? What was county court before it was abolished?

You and Lawdog go ahead and keep the referrals coming. It simply proves who has the correct standard around here for a reality check Shoonra.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Is there anybody in Colorado -- anyone who doesn't have a prison record -- who thinks that Suther isn't the A-G??

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Is there anybody in Colorado -- anyone who doesn't have a prison record -- who thinks that Suther isn't the A-G??

Everyone whose opinion matters...like the Governor of Colorado, and the Supreme Court of Colorado...agree that he is Attorney General.

The voices in DiMs head, though, say he isn't. And for DiM, that trumps everything else.