Feb 25, 2013 9:41 PM

What an AWESOME Invitation, HOW CAN I REFUSE!

...although your honour, I am only here to clear up this matter in which I may have security interests.

I am unclear as to why and I do not understand the NATURE and CAUSE of these proceedings. As that is the case, I respectfully inform the court that...

barring the court's objection, of course...

I am reserving all rights. Are there objections from the court?

Looking for OBJECTIONS from the court!

*Jeopardy Music*

Let the record show That I have reserved ALL rights.

There has been no objection...

Last chance court... I reserved ALL rights...even yours... they're mine now... REALLY OBJECTIONABLE... any objections?

OBJECTION!

Derek Moran, I hear your objection. WHO ARE YOU?

I am a JUDGE, SCOTT DUNCAN!

While fascinating, you have objected to my reservation of rights. I require you to IDENTIFY yourself.

OH you are not EITHER.

Oh..and what rights EXACTLY would that be you have RESERVED? lol

ALL of them...so there's no confusion

If it's a RIGHT, it's mine. Simple really.

..i have a nameplate in front of me you can see, yes Mr. Duncan?

Any objections?

Yes..you're in a jurisdiction where you have no rights.

Objection to the term mister. Have I lead you to believe I am a public servant? If that is so, then that would be a mistake. Forgive me.

Now as to my reservation of rights. You have objected, and I NEED TO KNOW who you are. WHO ARE YOU?

Mister is just a polite term im using..i dont know where you got the idea it meant 'public-servant' from

Dont you? Are you not legally competent to do your job?

..one doesnt have anything to do with the other

By what authority do you DARE address me a MISTER

By all means, Mr. Duncan.. explain to me how the use of Mister equates to referring to a 'public-servant,' im all ears

Again.. i fail to see why you are so offended by the use of the term Mister, is there some source-of-law you can cite for being such a sucky-baby about this?

As you persist in addressing me as a subordinate, I am going to ask you to recuse yourself. As you have clearly overstepped your authorised role, and claimed authority without identifying yourself, would you please recuse yourself now?

I am Judge Moran..it clearly states that on my nameplate if you chose to look at it.

GAME OVER...

You're talking to an empty court dude.

and what happen with the case ?????

caput ????

RECUSAL rules.

No, the case id rescheduled, and another judge with less of a glass jaw take over :D

*ROLE-PLAYING TIME-OUT* "As you persist in addressing me as a subordinate"..... what is it about MISTER that is so significant in all this?

***PAUSED***

ADMIRALTY.

HOW DO ADMIRALS GIVE ORDERS?

*shrugs*

Mister Moran, please come to new course 130 and set all engines ahead full!

New course 130, Flank speed, AYE!

THANK YOU, MISTER Moran

MISTER is a SUBORDINATE ROLE

By accepting MISTER, you are ACCEPTING THEIR AUTHORITY!

..does the Judge have ANY authority to act as Admiral?

Yes... when NOBODY ELSE IS THERE.

De FACTO

Oh FUCK.. so thats why they always bring Dean into an empty-courtroom!?

An Autopilot cannot act as Captain. But it still conns the boat.

Yes. That is why.

There ARE NO JUDGES! Only "Justices".

"Yes... when NOBODY ELSE IS THERE."..... how do you counter an empty-courtroom then?

Be the admiral. YOU are there..you win by default.

YOU are there. BE THE FUCKING ADMIRAL

..and thats by asking the JUSTICE continually- " By what authority do you DARE address me a MISTER?"

"recusal" i like it :) they've been swapping judges on me, nice to know i can follow their lead, i got my 3rd judge to set a jurisdiction hearing .... but then they swapped judge on me...

Well if someone addressed you as "bitch" how would you react?

Same thing. Do the same.

MISTER=BITCH

what if they just IGNORE all this and they keep proceeding ????

They cannot proceed without UNDERSTANDING. Hit them with WHO ARE YOU?

"RECUSAL rules."..... where exactly can i see/read these for myself?

Bitch Moran? Are you still there?

By what authority do you DARE address me a BITCH?

Bitch Moran, If I must do ALL the legwork then you will always be a bitch. I don't LIKE bitches, and it's against the law to kill them. So de-bitch yourself :P

You have the right to enter a knowing plea on your own behalf, my theory there would be, if he enters a plea on your behalf while denying you the facts, then you cold use a writ of mandamus?

no. You ask, BY WHAT AUTHOURITY DOES A LEGAL FICTION administer MY estate?

By what authority do you DARE address me a BITCH?.. and WHERE are these RECUSAL rules you speak of, MISTER?

Bitch is just a common salutation. It doesn't mean those crazy things you say :P

So if you get the Justice to admit representing the crown and your adversery is the crown it then becomes clear "conflict of interest" and leads to recusal or even dismissal as there is no way to proceed. Is this where your going with "WHO ARE YOU?" Scott Duncan ?

You are the worst Judge EVER

As you persist in addressing me as a subordinate, I am going to ask you to recuse yourself. As you have clearly overstepped your authorised role, and claimed authority without identifying yourself, would you please recuse yourself now?

recusal - (law) the disqualification of a judge or jury by reason of prejudice or conflict of interest; a judge can be recused by objections of either party or judges can disqualify themselves

Yes -Russ, that is where I am going :D

WHO ARE YOU negates the POSSIBILITY of there being UNDERSTANDING.

..how about JUDGE v. JUSTICE?

One's elected, one's appointed. The elected one has surety.

...hence No judges.

"... and claimed authority without identifying yourself,".... what is the answer you are TRYING to cajole from out of him asking this?

THEY ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR. They have NO AUTHORITY to identify themselves. A JUSTICE IS NOT A PERSON

maxim; no authority without liability.

THEY SIMPLY CAN'T ANSWER!

Are you still referring to him as 'Your Honour,' at this point.....?

lol my first appearance i asked the judge for his details... right before he locked me up .... Tort!

Call them whatever you wish. you are the authority.

Nobility simply expresses "wishes".

this is for civil and administrative court ?????

Where can these Recusal rules be found?

*sigh*

Whatever jurisdiction you are in, there are recusal rules... the UNIVERSAL ones were posed IN THIS THREAD by Mo Chara Do Chara a few posts up. THAT IS ALL YOU NEED!

Stop studying "Clubhouse Rules"! YOU ARE NOT IN THE FUCKING CLUB!

Im not studying clubhouse rules ??? :(

No, you are studying COMMON LAW

But I know lawyers and they don't seem to have the knowledge you have.

.....living under colour of law.

" Nobility simply expresses "wishes"".... speaking of which, when is Praecipe-bootcamp?

Why did you study twice Scott?

..what degrees were they in?

No chris, they don't. They stopped thinking.

I never stop. The data acquired when studying law + NO BELIEF + Computer Science, makes these things as obvious as day. It stops being a "growth process", and it grows itself.

good question i had "presumed" 2 different degrees

"clubhouse rules" are acts, statutes, criminal code, etc also part of the clubhouse rules...or is this a different "clubhouse you're talking about?

Last time I was in Majestrates (provincial) I refused to stand as they entered. Right off the bat he was screaming at me. I had worded my response so as not to create controversy and risk 'contempt'. I said "I'm happy to stand up upon reciept of proof of claim that you have authority over me." This went down before the name game. They all walked out. They came back and all sat down. Addressed me as "Mr Rawlingson" I said "There is no Mr Rawlingson here, Mr Rawlingson is on the clerk's desk" (whilst out the room I passed my BC to the usher to give the clerk.) I now realise this was a big mistake but it did lead to a very interesting hearing where I got to have my say, my way. Ripped 3 cops storys apart, exploded the evidence and still got a guilty. Better luck next time eh.

Daniel J Wentz and I minored in University of California at Berkeley. (Trust law & american civil)

I was also doing medicine and Computer Science.

In Canada, I faked an ID and studied at Osdoode. It's funny how many lawyers go "you look familiar". :D

ok- so theres 2 questions you can keep rotating between asking the Justice/ADMINISTRATOR, "By what authority do you DARE address me a MISTER?"...and..."BY WHAT AUTHOURITY DOES A LEGAL FICTION administer MY estate?"......?

and by what authority you declare war on my PERSON

both really boil down to "Who are you?"

and that one.

YUP!

and the reality is, thats the big question, who are they to dictate & judge

Its one of those moments when you gotta leave the "awkward" bit of the "Awkward Silenece" to the other side. It's the time not to go painting yourself into a corner. Just let them try and bumble forward. Then in response ask them again "Who are you?"

just another chimp

"and by what authority you declare war on my PERSON"...... this one is saved though, for when you are asked if you are being a BELLIGERENT DEFENDANT?

It should never get that far. EVER. But it IS nice to have ammo in case it does.

A Glock is nice, but a Glock and a P-90 on your back is nice too.

I asked the Prosecutor from St.Thomas these same questions-"Who are you..By what authority"..he countered with- "..we have a MEMORANDUM of Understanding with the Attorney General's office..." :/

crap, "WHO ARE YOU?" to the JP/Judge whoever, Just means I am not accepting YOU until YOU QUALIFY yourself TO ME, and IF there is any business between us then we will proceed but until then YOU have NO STANDING with ME.

crap

I have threesomes on weekends too! That has nothing to do with YOU.

In much the same way the Attorney General has SWEET FUCK ALL to do with ME!

Seriously Derek? THAT one stumpped you?

...memorandum of understanding. Really?

in other words you dont EVER EVER EVER quit on the question

He definitely side-tracked me..had me wondering what exactly that MEMORANDUM says

Now I want you all to look up the definition (Legal?) of "memorandum".

An informal record, in the form of a brief written note or outline, of a particular legal transaction or document for the purpose of aiding the parties in remembering particular points or for future reference.

A memorandum may be used in court to prove that a particular contract was made. For instance, in a real estate transaction, a memorandum can be used to show that the parties to a sale have entered into an agreement to sell a particular parcel at an indicated price, in addition to other details of the agreement. This type of memorandum is also referred to as a binder.

An attorney might use a memorandum to explain and summarize a specific point of law for a judge or for another attorney.

A memorandum decision is a written decision, issued by a court, which reports the ruling, and the decisions and orders of the court. It does not, however, contain an opinion, which is an explanation of the rationale upon which the decision was based.

Thanks Pierre Daoust!

SO, some stranger has proven he has a contract with...some other stranger.

What does that have to do with YOU!

Bottom line..and i think you mentioned this before...speeding-ticket/traffic-ticket = writing NO CONTRACT on it diagonally in RED voiding it, and sending it back to them registered-mail?

You sure you don't want to hit them with a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING? :D

I hear that shit's a real stumpper. :P

MOU is like a contract, but it does not have to carry the same legal weight. If the wordings used in the MOU are vague and unclear and do not create any binding effect, then the same cannot be enforced. It does not create a valid contract. But if one party do anything on reliance of MOU and sustains any loss he can recover back losses but cannot get enforce the MOU. Both Parties of MOU are bind by estoppel and any of them cannot take adverse stand.

A memorandum of understanding is an agreement between two parties in the form of a legal document. It is not fully binding in the way that a contract is, but it is stronger and more formal than a traditional gentleman's agreement. Sometimes, a memorandum of understanding is used as a synonym for a letter of intent, particularly in private law. A letter of intent expresses an interest in performing a service or taking part in an activity, but does not legally obligate either party.

While, Agreement contains proposal and its acceptance and intention of parties is to bind each other with the terms of agreement. It is intention of parties that if any one violet the terms other will go to court and get it enforced.

Read more: Memorandum of understanding | Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/essays/memorandum-of-understanding.php#ixzz2LxIJ78fk Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

"The Municipality of the County of Elgin has entered into an understanding with the Attorney General of Ontario's office, that its OK for us to violate your Common Law rights".......?

That doesn't really answer the QUESTION you asked. WHY do you LOVE these STRANGERS so much?

Remember that was his response to "WHO ARE YOU"?

WHO ARE YOU?

I have a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOME GUY.

OH! OK!

REALLY?

I been using "No Contract, Return to Sender" on the outside of envelopes for more than 2 years. At least 3 speed camera and two traffic signal tickets and one summons. All these have gone away. One Police deptartment wrote back with a threat letter which they also got back "No Contract" The best thing is our post office bag up resealed envelopes and charge about £3.00 to deliver them back CASH on DELIVERY so imagine the Tea & Biscuit Fund Tin gets robbed everytime Hahahaha

..i AM in the process of being de-programmed from the first 42 years of my life

STOP GIVING BELIEF VALUE!

Maxim-of-Law in The Dictionary of Canadian Law that is NOT in Black's Law, LEX CONVENTIONALIS: The law which the parties agree is to govern.

Not something you want to admit to in court though I think.: Dont need to...they will call yoy 3 time that qualifier....and then you ask...BY WHAT AUTHORITY YOU DECLARE WAR ON MY PERSON...(very loud)

If I did not create the "CHAD BRODGESELL" person/trust I can not Administer it, I am the beneficiary of it and the Prosecutor is the Trustee unless I let the Prosecutor CONVINCE me otherwise.

Sry, thinking outloud.

RUSS- do you write NO CONTRACT, RETURN TO SENDER on the actual tickets, too?

So no agreement = no government. No consent = No contract. The Memorandom of Understanding line was a case of Bullshit Beating Brains. Something used a lot in courts it seems.

Scott Duncan, when you tell them you reserve all rigths and ask if anyone have any objections....they really can not respond to that ????either by yes or no ????

let say Derek Moran's response was NO, NO OBJECTIONS...whats next ????

Another one of the code-phrases he used when i asked him what exactly WAS this Memorandum of Understanding he spoke of, was about a- "...Transfer Agreement between them and the Attorney General's office..." :/

Derek. No I don't. I open the letter, if I don't like what I read I stuff it back in the envelope, seal it back up with clear tape. Mark it NCRTS and shove it in the nearest postbox.. No Stamp Required. Post office then stick it in an opaque bag, seal it and adress it and collect coin for delivering it. Another point not well known is that if your dealing with any form of government you can write OHMS (On Her Majestys Service) on your letter and it will go first class post for free. Probably work in Canada too?????

If you are the BENEFICIARY, you have a SECURITY INTEREST IN IT. That's why you are there.

In WalMartese: Someone's fuckin' with your shit. That's why you are there!

The summons I sent back was for telling a Train Ticket collecter to fuck off. He kicked me awake on the train. Anyway I'd read about a summons being an invitaion and that the reason you get arrested for failure to appear is that you tacitly agree to appear if you don't respond. So I thought I'd give my usual response and it worked. No warrent out for my arrest since I sent back the summons in 2010.

Thanks Russ- just got a Property Tax Account STATEMENT from the city, usually mark-up the actual STATEMENT, hand-deliver it back to them, get them to stamp MY photocopy of it they are in receipt of it, but..costs 6 bucks bus-fare to do that, and ive been doing that ALOT recently..gonna try your way

let say Derek Moran's response was NO, NO OBJECTIONS...whats next ????

Hey no Derek I would say that your way is better, As is using Recorded Delivery. The thing is with traffic tickets over here is that it massivly fucks with their Process. To get you into court they first have to get you to accept the documents,

They can not. ONLY A PERSON can object.

So they will certainly say NO, NO OBJECTIONS ????

No

They don't have the authority to answer AT ALL!

IF IT'S HARD you're DOING IT WRONG!

IDIOTS are lawyers. HOW HARD CAN IT BE?

"So I thought I'd give my usual response and it worked."..... that usual response being NCRTS, taping back-up the envelope and mailing it back to them?

ONLY the fact that you value BELIEF blinds you.

YOU WERE PROGRAMMED to value BELIEF.

Yes Derek.

I'm going to get out one of my dealings with the Crown and go over it in respect to what is who and/or what is what regarding the names.

you are served on the side of the road via the ticket, now you have 15 days to make a move

/titles

What im TRYING to encourage my dad to do, is to fill-out the bill-payment-remittance attached to the Property Tax Account STATEMENT, fill-in the empty 'Amount-box'.. print ACCEPT at the top like Crawford and Falconbridge's Bills of Exchange book apparently instructs for a bill-payment-remittance.. sign-it with his Signature, then mail it back in registered-mail

The poo-poo will probably hit-the-fan.. but i am aware of the Maxims regarding payments not accepted discharges the debtor ;)

do you have access to that book Derek?

Last time i checked, it was out-of-print on amazon.ca, or else i would buy it..

Nope. Still not in.. http://www.amazon.ca/Banking-Bills-Exchange-Falconbridge/dp/9993185124/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361836415&sr=1-2-fkmr0

I did buy this one, though: http://www.amazon.ca/Bills-Exchange-ACT-1890-Codification/dp/1145736963/ref=sr_1_57?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361836679&sr=1-57

wat do we go after them with if we dont use there rules

LEGAL TENDER = CLUBHOUSE RULES

No, you ratify your trust. Tell the IMF. UCC considers your trust a Jurisdiction. THE END.

SECTION 9. BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1985 = OUR RULES

YES

ONE LAST FUCKING TIME!

THE UCC's PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!

THE UCC's PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!

THE UCC's PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION!

Clear?

Im 10 pages into the Hodgins' Bills of Exchange book and nary a word about LEGAL, but.. lots of references to the LAW :)

but LAW is agreement, who;s laws and what parties is the book refering too?

Does "all rights reserved" restrict them from forcing you to state your name?

Is it your right not to answer?

That's what I thought, but where do they justify threatening arrest?

Stupidity and Evil are old companions. One does not preclude the other.

Derek Moran. B4 ye do the BOE theres more ye need to know otherwise they'll charge ye with passing on a dud checque. Research more mate. Quite a few bits you've left out. Where's the STAMP DUTY & VALUABLE CONSIDERATION?

Beverly May Braaksma: they "threaten arrest"... WHAT FOR? Think about it!

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR?

Criminal Non-Identification?

Who's the injured party?

There's NO LAW that makes it cimpulsory for ye to give/show identification. Tis NO CRIME. They're talkin out of their asses. Ask them for the hard copy version of the ACT. nuh, still haven't seen it.

WOW- i have to share this..this is the question i asked of the NDP MPP Attorney General critics office: "I was wondering; as the NDP Attorney General-critic, are there any de jure courts left in Ontario, and where are they located?"

AND, this is the answer i just received: "Derek, Essentially all courts in Ontario are de jure courts, or law abiding courts. Is there a particular issue or story you would like to share with our office?"

..problem solved everyone- and remember who did it for you! ;)

thought i'd share todays appearance here in Ireland, its bad footage but enough to convince you of a complete departure from even the colour of law. Scott has referred to this particular region as ground zero ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9T7N5PkBrY&feature=youtu.be

Derek, so no De Facto courts then?

I dunno..but im gonna bring that email in with me to court next time i go! ;)

"You're talking to an empty court dude."..... so even though the court might be packed with people, once you've asked the Judge to recuse himself, how does that render as you said- "You're talking to an empty court dude," for the court to suddenly become EMPTY? :/

cheers, i get what you say, no identity, no authority essentially no one there.i should explain that the plea had not even been entered while i was present,the pleading should have been attempted today but he decided to skip that. his mind was already very much made up before i set foot in the court... despite law & reason, who were noticeably absent.

.....there was no attempt to even give the colour of law in any description, just a railroading which is a sad reflection on us & how comfortable they feel, we have more on our plate than arguing lawful procedure, they've clearly abandoned it ... lets see ;)

Suil- did you use any Maxims-of-Law?

left my affidavit to the AG on the clerks desk & no authority without liability is a maxim.so far everybody has refused to identify themselves i have refused no details just ask for their id & they failed to satisfy me.the witness's went unchallenged in "their" story because i wasn't going to be drawn into arguing the points.

Unbelievably, this is what a friend from high-school just said to me :

"interesting. but I believe that I the only way I can be free is to submit to authority. If I do not, then I become a slave to my own will."

Theres a great Maxim that says- "Statutes that derogate from the common law should be construed strictly." Those Judges- they LOVE their LATIN. ;)

"...does the Judge have ANY authority to act as Admiral?"....Scott Duncan: "Yes... when NOBODY ELSE IS THERE."........ why does there need to be nobody else there in the courtroom first in order for him to have the authority to act as an ADMIRAL?

Look up the Definition for De Facto.

In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." - Seriously, it boggles my mind that these VERY simple things elude you people.

The "justice" is De Facto. YOU are De Jure

Black's 6th: De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

De facto judge. A judge who functions under color of authority but whose authority is defective in some procedural form.

De jure: Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense it is the contrary of de facto (q. v.). It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia means "by grace or favor."

So, from what Derek Moran was informed:'"Derek, Essentially all courts in Ontario are de jure courts, or law abiding courts.", means that when I become recognised as a belligerent, the court then becomes a de jure court?

I'm unclear on what 'right and just title' is...back to Black's for some more definitions...

Title. A mark, style, or designation; a distinctive appellation; the name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law of persons, a title is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it; as "duke" or "count."

Clear title, good title, merchantable title, marketable title, are synonymous; "clear title" meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, "good title" being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.

'Comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.'

Equitable title. A right in the party to whom it belongs to have the legal title transferred to him; or the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.

Legal title. One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of "equitable title."

As holder in due course of the bill of lading, does that confer 'legal title', while liening the name secures 'equitable title'...help guys, please...

Adam .. in North Queensland Courts, the "Bitch" runs out the Court room screaming when asked WHO ARE YOU.

The hired goons then eject everyone from the room, and lock the doors.

Adam, the mere mention of section 514 of the Cwth Criminal Code ( Personage ) results in the "Bitch" screaming from the box.

"YOU CANT SAY THAT IN HERE .. DON'T SAY THAT IN HERE " .. " THIS IS A QUASI CRIMINAL COURT"

Followed by, " If you say one more word your going to prison" ... lol

Prison? You intend to kidnap me?

Poor things (Bitches) they get most upset when you call the bluff :)

Who's the injured party?

Injured Party belong them. they got their feelings hurt ...lol

So... they file a hurt feelings report?

Scott not that we have seen :) .. the end result is the "Dog" exits stage left, followed by the slaming of the court room door .. :)

Quasi-criminal. How retarded is their system. Thanks wayne. It's been done quite a few times already but it works & don't they hate it :)

Its a interesting Game .. :)

*Scott Duncan to Judge Moran* "Oh- and by the way, anybody in this courtroom who considers me to be a person, and is planning on getting me through coercion to BE a person, will be committing Fraud. Do i hear any Objections from the court?"..... dont know if that 'jives' exactly, but that just came to me :)

Reading through my 8th edition of Black's magic, I stumbled onto this definition, although it seems to have been embellished a bit!

http://cl.ly/image/2n0u2g3q3j09

..here's the one Brenda Larson

164. Fair hearing

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), that subsection does not preserve the validity of the proceeding if the failure to comply with the agreement results in PREJUDICE to the DEFENDANT'S RIGHT to a FAIR HEARING.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK207

Thanks Derek Moran for your help.

AMICUS CURIAE (Lat. for “a friend of the court”), a term used primarily in law, signifying a person (usually a member of the BAR) who, having special knowledge but NOT being engaged in the suit, intervenes during its hearing to give information for the assistance of the court, either upon some fact relevant to the issue or upon a point of law, such as the hearing of a local custom, the precedent of some decided case

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Amicus_Curiae

I had missed this thread some how. What a shame, for is full of goodies, yum, yum! Thanks Scott Duncan!

Am I fuckin invisible Max ??

Scott D, pierre, etc etc

No Adam, you and the rest are not invisible. But my "likes" and thanks always go to comments that have a lot of VALUE to ME. It happens to be that in this particular thread, the taken names mentioned offered me great VALUE for practically nothing in exchange, other than my gratitude. But, Adam, you may feel free to fill a "Am I fuckin invisible?" Report for further details. <3 Jusk a joke. ;)

Hahahaha.....I'm just winding ye up Maxy mate...all good :-)

Where do I get the paperwork to file such a report Max?? & who will BELIEVE IT ??

..this one Philip Laforet

Saw it I thought it was in fun. The one thing I have noticed with the cops crowns etc, they are so fucking arrogant, especially for public servants, whom I now just refer to as trustees, better title when I sue for CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST!! Nes pas?

..sue for CRIMINAL Breach of Trust? OR, a common law TORT for Breach of Trust?

We say : n'est-ce pas

Mister Unauthorized Administrator or Mister Supernumerary, are the ones that make a Justice twitch the most.

Never use "Your Honour" Only YOU have that..."Your SURETY", is one I haven't tried yet, but it's in the cue.

..layman's terms for, QUASI DE SON TRUSTEE, i think...? :/

QUEUE! Fucking autosuggest, and Dragon Naturally Speaking are NOT good companions!

ive always thought, if he is a Justice of the Peace, then refer to him as- "Your Justice".. remind him, "You are Justice" (or at least supposed to be)

whats the relevance of "Mister Unauthorized Administrator or Mister Supernumerary" i have the definitions just dont understand the relevance??

Why not MISTER ????

MISTER = Admiralty Law term that refers to a SUBORDINATE

Dean Clifford has always said that SUPERNUMERARY = a paid-ACTOR

I tought Mister = Bitch

1. Exceeding a fixed, prescribed, or standard number; extra. 2. Exceeding the required or desired number or amount; superfluous. See Synonyms at superfluous. n. pl. su·per·nu·mer·ar·ies 1. One that is in excess of the regular, necessary, or usual number. 2. An actor without a speaking part, as one who appears in a crowd scene.

in the army someone who was "Supernumerary" was someone who held a rank with no appointment, example when 2 units are merged & there are ranks without appointment.]

Súil Eile gets a gold star.

It's ADMIRALTY ON LAND (Army).

right so by reffering to him as Mr Supernumerary, you are removing him from office?

.....he is surplus to requirement?

Navy needs a Judge Advocate GENERAL to act in law. It's the only way one CAN "Judge" in law; As a SUPERNUMERARY.

Wrong definition... go back to the Army. :P

from your definition @Súil Eile, he's just part of the crowd scene & hasn't been granted a speaking role...unless you, the Director of the scene, grant him one ;)

"ADMIRALTY ON LAND (Army)".... reminds of the few variations of the same Maxim-of-law saying: "The law expects no one to perform an impossibility"-----> The Law of the Sea ON LAND

Scott has mentioned before: "Judges were meant to be ELECTED"

LOL, just occurred to me..shouldnt we be electing JUDGES, and NOT politicians??

Which is why there are no "Judges" in the Commonwealth.

..of course, thats news to THEM ;)

No it isn't. They know very well.

You know what i mean, though..they would never ADMIT IT, out loud

he's an "Officer" of the court? and he's an officer without a proper appointment?

He's an Officer of the court who was appointed, but should've been ELECTED..

sorry Derek that took a few mins to sink in, He's a political appointment, so he's a state "judge" does that mean he cant act against those who appoint him, no separation of powers?

None. Justice != Judge.

Justice = Tendered Government Contractor.

get ye cheers man (Y)

"Justice = Tendered Government Contractor"..... if this ultimately is the case, then, wouldnt EVERYTHING going-on in a courtroom be grounds for RECUSAL RULES on the basis of there is a permanently-inherent CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST going-on at all times? :/

Wow......well pointed Derek Moran. That's really fucked up if it is true or more so PROVEN!!

no separation of powers is right........http://14adistrictcourt.org/judges/tabbey this is the prick giving me a hard time, the smart guy he is, was appointed to his lowly district court position; by whom it doesn't say. A news article says after his appointment he was elected to the chief bench position by the people.

..have you seen the RECUSAL RULES thread in here, J.C. ?

Derek Moran no where are they? and the shit piles keep growing, has anybody ever dealt with show cause letters?

oh and more strange brew brewing...while leaving county jail friday morning the pencil pushing administrative deputy deliberately lied to me about the date of the next hearing, he said, do you know you have court the 25 of April? I said is it really? he said yes. I knew court was the 22nd, so yesterday I called the court and the clerk said no hearing is schedule for case No. ______ today and I said are you sure with her on speaker so my witnesses could hear and she said no. I didn't believe them so I went to get the Register of Actions for the case No._____ and sure enough DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR/BENCH WARRANT ISSUED/WARRANT REJECTED BY MICHIGAN STATE POLICE "LEIN" Law Enforcement Information Network. This is crazy they lied, they entered I failed to appear but the warrant was rejected from entering the police computers so when the Legal Name is ran it doesn't show in the system valid as of now, maybe it will be accepted at a later date but this time my bond is ten percent of 10,000.00 (1,000) if i dont pay i stay put lol.

supernumerary judges or magistrates.- (Wikipedia)

These are judges who have retired from their full time position on a court, but continue to work on a part-time basis. Generally, when a judge becomes supernumerary a vacancy is created, and the appropriate person or body may subsequently make a new appointment to that Court...

"Judges for hire" (via contract) more or less...

Súil Eile Scott

oh and the county district court clerks or assistant deputy clerks wont give up there last name!!!! I asked what is your name and they said we don't use our last name!! this is illegal I said you work for the public do you not ? she said yes, then I said you have and obligation to the people and we must know who you are.

and ???....

they were silent I said well you are bonded and insured correct? then she said no I dont think so lol....I then said dont worry I will find out for you ok.

IGNORANCE within the gang !!!!.... :D

i think thats how they would like to explain it away Eamonn, my understanding of what scott was getting at was the disparity of how a "real" judge is Authorised for the position through election by the people & the states politically appointed "colour" of impartiality (justice)puppet. At the moment here there is great debate about the seperation of powers (govt/judiciary) but they are blowing smoke up our holes because the reality is there is none.

J.c. I'm not sure if it's a maxim i read relating to this or case law i read......where no one is entitled to info from you that you are not entitled from them, sorry for being vague dude give me a bit to remember & i'll confirm

"dont worry I will find out for you ok" how do you find this info out?

She said lol at the end? :p

no i said lol in my head haha, they gave me there first names so with snooping around I should get it out of someone and the court administrator might give them to me or the circuit court recorder; the bonds are supposed to be there. I will do some snooping around.

and Súil Eile thats sound like justice, i wish the judge felt that way instead of threatening to enter failure to appear when I only give up the Given.

j.c., how do you get the "judges" bond details??

i hear the Secretary of State has them here in the States. I will check soon this week.

this guy did a decent job, even though I don't like his name but oh well..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyLb9S1FTk

cheers j.c, if i find anything here in the meantime i'll let you know, i was thinking of a demand to the clerks office?

Súil Eile have you done one before?

i've used commercial affidavits(defaulted) in the high court to remove summary jurisdiction, we're waiting to see to see if they have the balls to enter common law, they've asked us to file a defence, basically asking us to show our hand before they bet against us :p we sent a lien to ceo of an electrical company who had filed a frivilous & vexatious case, he supplied remedy & withdrew his claim. have'nt figured out the filing bit yet but the threat that i may know has done the trick :)

There are 2 judges who volunteered(made themselves known to me by refusing me their i.d.) to be my test dummies (Y)

that was very generous of them ;)

I've always done the standing approach live in court, never wanted to file paperwork until I had a solid and viable process figured out to support it.

yeah turns out they might not be as clever as i once "believed" or was "lead to believe" :p

exactly summary or district court is nothing here, the circuits and above are the courts that matter.

This is great stuff, Suil..we should start a thread on HOW TO USE A LIEN TO ACT AS A DETERRENT SO YOU DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANY LEGAL-BULLSHIT FROM ANYONE IN THE FIRST PLACE ;)

we're all coming from different backgrounds/experiences, as long as we are under our own steam following our own logic we can learn. one case was high court summary & the other district summary, theres much more colour of law outside the tort cases in "criminal".

I've written up affidavits but not commercial affidavits, not sure how a C.A. is formulated yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyqomVE1Q_0

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/comliens.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhCWbXwVn7A

lol the Moors, I've seen those videos before.

part 2 is fun !!! :D

yeah he was not very calm. The old lady was calm and coool haha

Reading this AWESOME SHIT is giving me a hard on lads.....nearly at the vinegar stroke...need some moooorrrreeee.....

Fap...fap...fap....:D

TY Brown

Holy Zombie Thread, Batman!

This fucker keeps rising from the dead.

ZOMBIES !!!! WHERE ????

Batman ????....where ?????

guano

Are you guys on drugs :-\

Justin Moule: today a prosecutor said "affidavits are not recognized in court"

"affidavits are not recognized in court" - Really?

Yes, thats what Justin's brother-in-law was told in court today by the Prosecutor mind you..CONSIDER THE SOURCE

I can't believe how much these people lie!! It is a disgrace, I'm certain a few liens on crown attorney's licenses would sharpen them up. In Ontario it's only $28.00 and $8.00 a year after that. It is simple trough PPSA. Could be even cheaper in other Provinces! Get 'em!!

6 people have 'Liked' this comment so far, Scott..would you concur with this observation?

"Justice = Tendered Government Contractor"..... if this ultimately is the case, then, wouldnt EVERYTHING going-on in a courtroom be grounds for RECUSAL RULES on the basis of there is a permanently-inherent CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST going-on at all times? > (that basis being your adversary is most likely a BAR-member, the same as the presumed fair-and-impartial Judge/JP is a BAR-member, also)

Pretty much the same as a Hell's bunker ! The language is a bit more simple but the result will be the same, unless you have MASTERIZED what you are going to do in there :/

yes this shit is better then any drug.

It sure is John Frisbey. Hey duck feather. When are ye going to release your DICTIONARY? MASTERIZED.....

fuck off

Sieg fail !!

aaaahhhhhhhhhhh.......

???

I was in a summary court for driving and when I gave the court my NOM he told me he didn't want anything of me only my insurance details and drivers licence I asked have you read my NOM he said he didn't want any of that just my licence and insurance I said if you refuse my facts ill put it all in an affidavit that you refused my facts he put it back to another date and told me his court doesn't deal with affidavits?

Mo: Your SURETY, your conduct has caused me to reasonably believe that you have formed a biased position as regards this matter, and could serve to damage my interests. As I may have SECURITY INTEREST in this matter, and YOU are evidently legally incompetent to do your job, would YOU please RECUSE yourself now?

Mo Chara Do Chara, why did you go to court? I am just curious.

I wanted to send in my NOM by register mail but the garda only came to me just before my date in court to give me my summons so it wouldn't have been in on time all I kept saying was I don't understand the nature and cause of these proceedings until my questions on the NOM have answered I asked by what authority do you address me as a YOU he told me to go get some legal advise before he should me by what authority he`d show me

That last sentence makes me think you might be a stroke victim. WTF are you saying?

:-D

I read the questions of the NOM into the court files he told me too stop reading notes and get legal advice

I would have asked why.

You guys are good at parroting, but not thinking. :P

i did he told to get legal advise that ive not to be reading notes in his court

i laughed and asked is nobody allowed to read notes/facts

Again, that's not really an answer to "why".

"Seek legal advice". "Why"? "..."

Get it?

This stranger just said that you must enter into a commercial transaction`. Why is he doing this? Did you seek advice from him?

To attorn administrative rights and be re-presented...

When I say you don't think, I mean YOU DON'T THINK.

surety

Again... you miss my point. Good for you. That takes a special kind of stupid.

The judge has no authority to force you to enter a contract with anyone i.e. A solicitor. He has no authority to do so

Which is why you ask "why" when he says "seek legal advice".

That kind of a why !!! :D

And then, this guy should response something in those lines... :D

I think Scott's point is to continually answer them with a question, thus negating understanding & surety:

eg: Why would I want to do that? Are you offering me legal advice? By what authority are you offering me legal advice? Are you attempting to make me surety in this matter? What evidence do you have that I could be such a thing as surety in this matter? How can I possibly assist the court if I'm not able to establish the facts of the matter? etc etc...ad infinitum

and the favourite: Who ARE YOU?

If a Wal-Mart manager suddenly kidnapped you, and dragged you into Wal-Mart for an "Employee Disciplinary Hearing", would you be responding the same way?

NO!

You'd be screaming that you are being kidnapped, and point out that you DON'T EVEN WORK FOR WAL-MART. You would NOT engage in the idiotic dialog you just described here.

I hope it's his point fuck.... :D

Why do you give these strangers "special status"?

QED

If ever I end up in court by force....I know EXACTLY what to do :D

First thing I'll say: Hey, what do you want from me, a ransom or something ?

And then, Oh, you need some cash to pay for these big steaks you eat every night, so you want to fuck around with some surety here...ha ha....I see what you want....

I know you guys may say, yeah yeah pete, wait until you are in a real bunker.....

I SWEAR ON ALL MY KIDS I will say this, because it's the fucking truth.....that's why :P

Tell the truth when you are brought in there with force......just say the truth and ask these questions....

Hey.....where I am now ? And who are you ?

If you go there on your own choice, well that's another story.....I think

Hey Scott Duncan; Love this group and the wealth of information here is of incredible value IMO. But I have a couple questions with regards to things I am still a little unclear on. 1. If I reserve all rights and say "Barring any objection from the court", does that statement not mean that the court cannot object, as it has been barred from doing so? 2. If one needs only to operate in USD to satisfy the UCC; does this not mean that Canada has satisfied the UCC by trading oil in the world market?( Oil is traded internationally in USD according to world reserve currency) 3. If I am in Court, and by using these methods I get the "Justice" to get up and walk out; does this not make me of the highest authority in the room; and give me the ability to dismiss the case myself and have the record reflect that? 4. In asking the "Justice" "who are you?"; what would be the answer I would need from them that would prove they were a Crown Court Justice(appointed by the Crown, to which they have sworn an oath of service); thereby creating the grounds for recusal based on an obvious and ongoing conflict of interest? Thank you again for your time and information; you are most certainly a bright light at the end of what seems to me to be a very long and dark tunnel; a tunnel leading out of the "concentration camp" we all call CANADA... ;)

"Barring any objection from the court" = "UNLESS THE COURT OBJECTS".

The court is not a person, and/or party, so they CAN'T object.

"... and give me the ability to dismiss the case myself and have the record reflect that?" - Too much Free-Dumb movement crap. You aren't in the club. Why do you think you suddenly have rank in the club?

If Wal-Mart kidnapped you... Fuck. Do I REALLY need to continue? Are you REALLY all that thick?

Gotcha; question redacted ;)

In asking the "Justice" "who are you?"...

...and if you are asking a question, you'd best know WHY you are asking.

I might ask "Who are you" and you might answer "some douche on the internet". It is up to me to decide, if I accept that as an answer. Same when you ask a "Justice" this.

If the "Justice" answers "I'm some douche in a black dress", it's up to you to decide if that is an acceptable answer.

So then I keep asking until I am satisfied with the answer? (my apologies for my thickness by the way; please forgive me) ;)

If you don't know, then what are you even doing there?

Ahhh, point taken, thank you again ;)

So,if I have this right then, this backs my failure to understand not only the charge; but why I am even there in the first place. So unless the justice tells me they are justice so and so; there is no reason for me to be there; and if they do tell me they are justice so and so; the recusal rule enters into effect due to conflict of interest.

Once again, I apologize for my "thickness"; please forgive me.

No. :P

Hehe!!! :D ...you must be talking to someone with a HUGE mustache :D Sorry, but I have blocked him :(

Sorry to bug you again Scott Duncan; but by not answering my question about the UCC(Jurisdiction); does this mean you are unsure, or that the answer to my question is way too obvious, and I should know this by now? I realize your frustration with all of us asking you to "beat the dead horse" in so many cases on here; so I am hoping that you just missed answering it for some other reason. ;)

I personally would rather send the "dead horse" to France, so they can eat it... ;)

Scott Duncan: no. You ask, BY WHAT AUTHOURITY DOES A LEGAL FICTION administer MY estate?

*Bump.

I had read this thread at least 6 to 8 times. I read it again today, and I it's like I hadn't read it before. I can say for the first time, I get this whole thread, and it's comments. Awesome thread, Admiral. :)

Holy fuck !!! :D ...it's like I have all this in my blood, now :-o

I guess it's time to get kidnapped :D

Oh, this is old...

This thread will be sold on ebay, in some times..... :D

King Matthew Benevolent...ha!

Mustache!!!!!