Mar 11, 2013 7:31 PM

Well shit. This group practically writes itself!

GOOD TOPIC!

The operative-phrase of this post is self-explanatory: "...the procedure and grounds by which a judge may be challenged and removed from hearing a case."

Then, they follow that up with THE GROUNDS for the RECUSAL of a judge: "...The GROUNDS for disqualification traditionally include great friendship or enmity with a party, close kinship to a party, acceptance of a bribe, previously giving counsel to a party, or demonstrated ignorance of the law."

"Would you like to recuse yourself"? - This always works :D

This actually claims your rights, and turfs the Justice. ;)

Read that as...BECAUSE I FUCKING SAID SO! :D

On top of that, i see a recurring-theme in these definitions of the words/terms- "...conflict-of-interest...prejudice...(and id assume and/or presume BIAS exhibited, would be acceptable too)..."

What ive learned from you Scott, is that much like comedy- timing is also everything in Law/being-in-court. Goes without saying you would NOT want to RECUSE a Judge who is actually acting IMPARTIAL. But, if he ISNT being IMPARTIAL towards you, how soon/quick/at-which-point, do you pull the "Would you like to recuse yourself"?-trigger...?

The second you suspect it; "Your Honour 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. Would you please recuse yourself"?

(Note: ending that question with "..you sanctimonious, worthless parasitic bitch"? ...is optional.)

Do you have to call-out- "Point-of-Order" first, before you say that?

No. In fact this would fall under OBJECTION. You OBJECT to a sanctimonious, worthless parasitic bitch ruling on the matter.

POINT OF ORDER serves to POINT out an error and/or MISTAKE.

So the more formal way of phrasing this then would be- "Objection...(and then what you wrote a couple posts up)...Your Honour, 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. Would you please recuse yourself?"..... ? "/

"I wish for you to recuse yourself"... How would that go down?

at minute 32:00, is where Dean starts explaining how he asked/told the judge to "recuse himself":

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfactradio/2013/03/05/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep12-dean-tells-all

You have mentioned before NOT to MOTION to/with the court, as you are unwittingly consenting to their jurisdiction, Scott?

YES! Martin Sutton almost did that. Darren the cop was all for it. If Darren the cop says it, you probably should try figure out why you shouldn't... RIGHT MARTIN? :P

As i am typing this, i am listening to the portion of the show where Dean describes RECUSING the judge. Was it uneccessary then for Dean, to MOTION for the judge to recuse himself, as in he didnt even need to bother with doing that to begin with? :/

If a writ is an order of the court on behalf of one party to the other how do you file for the court to issue one? Am I understanding it properly even...?

Praecipe.

So going into court and right-off-the-bat saying to the judge- "I MOTION for you to Strike/I MOTION for you to Quash this matter" = BAD, because you are consenting to their jurisdiction unwittingly

1. At common law, a writ ordering a defendant to do some act or to explain why inaction is appropriate. - Also termed writ of praecipe. 2. A written motion or request seeking some court action, esp. a trial setting or an entry of judgment...

So praecipe is a request for the court to issue a writ...?

YES, and it's a DEMAND. Praecipe= ORDER FROM THE KING

Black's says "order of the court"... That's where I got a bit mislead...

Blacks (in some editions) says you are a "Monster" too.

[Latin, Give an order.] An original writ, one of the forms of legal process used to commence an action. A praecipe was drawn up in the alternative and commanded the defendant to do what was ordered or to appear and show why he or she had not done it. An order that commands the clerk of a court to issue a formal writ of execution directing the enforcement of a judgment already rendered and commanding a public officer to seize the defendant's property in order to satisfy the debt.

Scott wrote Praecipe's in yhe 90's that fucked a LOT of people up. He IS the best source for this.

...Yes.

The RIGHT WAY would be to say- "Your Honour, i PRAECIPE for you to Strike/ I PRAECIPE for you to Quash this matter"- is the way we SHOULD be phrasing these statements (instead of using the term "MOTION"), but is the way THEY would prefer us NEVER find out about?

No.

Praecipe is WRITTEN, because it's LAW, and the WHOLE PURPOSE is to NOT be in a court!

If Praecipe= ORDER FROM THE KING... what does MOTION equal?

FROM WIKIFUCKINGPEDIA! "In Canada it is used in place of a notice of motion as an application for a desk order that is granted in the court registry without a hearing before a judge".

...oh Derek, you miss the little things...LIKE NOT GOING TO FUCKING COURT!

beggin from a slave

"...oh Derek, you miss the little things...LIKE NOT GOING TO FUCKING COURT!"..... no argument here. I just lack experience. Ummm..when will you be showcasing your talents in a courtroom again next? ;)

Oh crap. Scott's makeing a drone army I see.

Oh well. I hear AQUILAE trustees always end up doing pretty well for themselves, so no worries.

Things must be going to shit if `Liz has let you off her leash, Scott Duncan!

I'm Pete and/or Peter and/or Pierre and/or Babe (I reserve this one for my wife) I'm also Dad (I reserve this one for my children) and/or BELLIGERENT and I'm the LAWFUL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF PIERRE DAOUST Social Insurance no. 26X-XXX-XXX, Inscription No.119XXXXXXXX

I’m the SOLE beneficiary of PIERRE DAOUST

I make ALL business decisions for PIERRE DAOUST

And I reserve ALL RIGHTS….all of them—yours as well

Is ANYONE have any objections ?????

Pierre, when someone addresses you as "SIR" you are being addressed from a subordinate. ALL my trustees in a duty capacity MUST call me "sir".

Ever notice that when a COP doesn't know your name he calls you SIR, and when they HAVE your name they Call you "MISTER Daust"?

Only those I have fealty to, may call me "Mister Wenttz"

Ok, so to review: you would NEVER verbally use the term PRAECIPE in court, in terms of say- "Your Honour, i PRAECIPE for you to Strike/Quash this matter.."..... PRAECIPE, is STRICTLY, to be used, in WRITTEN form ONLY...?

One HOLDS fealty. One does not HAVE it :P

Yes, sir. ;)

ONLY WRITTEN FORM. NOTHING ELSE.

Re:"what does MOTION equal?"

It means, "BEND OVER AND TAKE IT DRY, BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY ASKED FOR IT! JOINDER, BABY"!

So, to review: it was unneccessary for Dean in court on the audio, to "MOTION" for the judge to recuse himself? He needed only to OBJECT, and ASK the judge to recuse himself, using the phrasing that you wrote earlier, Scott?

lol..and of course...the next time a judge cautions you about the consequences of MOTIONing, will be the FIRST time ? :/

If a JUSTICE cautions you about the "dangers" of MOTIONING, he's HELPING you.

Judges are ELECTED, and JUSTICES are APPOINTED. [Scott-like emphisis added]

Since you are in CANADA, then you should not be concerned about JUDGES, because you will never be before one.

...What he said.

Am I the only AQUILAE trustee with a "star of david" stitched into the uniform?

It's just for record-keeping.

..so- i guess thats why then Dean couldnt figure out why the judge was not Recusing himself, because, Dean had MOTIONED for him to Recuse himself, instead of simply OBJECTING and asking the judge to Recuse himself? :/

Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY.

I would have locked him up for contempt. :P

Civil or Criminal? :P

Criminal. I would have witnessed FRAUD against the petitioner.

Dean claimed he was not the name, but by MOTIONING he was acting as a PARTY, and was INTERFERING WITH THE LEGAL COMMERCIAL INTERESTS of the petitioner.

You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD

"Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY."...... holy fuck, where does it actually say that somewhere- where is the source-of-reference for this?..id love to see this for myself

Contempt is so easy to sidestep! He stepped IN it. The Justice saved his ass!

Fuck, indeed!

NEVER think there are "iron-clad" methods to dodge liability. It's why I made the NOTICE OF MISTAKE for him. He didn't even acknowledge it.

So for someone who doesnt know any better, find themselves in court, and are planning on asking the judge to STRIKE or QUASH the charge, what would they use instead of MOTION then, in the wording/phrasing of their delivery...?

Derek: ONTARIO ANNUAL PRACTICE has all the rules. Who else BUT a party can even APPEAR? You are trying to "prove" something you already KNOW!

You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD: wow...thats solid stuff ???.....is it me or I focus on the wrong stuff..???....

Derek Moran, Only a PERSON can be a PARTY. Do you really need "proof" of this?

Why do you looking for "validation from your rapist" (as Scott says)?

Derek Moran, you need to STOP being so obsessed with getting validation from these people.

Scott, The TYCHO BRAHE is too small, but The BRIMSPARK is big enough. SURELY the fleet has room for a Belligerant French guy. I cant imagingine that NOT being useful somehow.

Scott AND/OR Daniel..so what you guys are saying, is nevermind finding a fancy-replacement for the term MOTION, just go ahead and straight-out TELL the judge to STRIKE and QUASH the charge?

Would saying" for and on the record I am filing a praecipe in the court wishing for the JP to dismiss the case" be considered "filing with the court"?

I'd imagine you just need to get your praecipe on record...?

Praecipe is never IN the court! EVER. OMG I'm sorry I ever mentioned it!

Reserve the JP's right to say anything but "How do you wish to proceed"...

*sigh*

If you are in court RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. State that you wish the "charges" dismissed, and keep QUESTIONING!

"Point of order, I hereby reserve all rights in this court as I am the only party with standing, does the court object?"

Watch this it explains praecipe:

http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/video-praecipe-act-of-the-king/

""If you are in court RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. State that you wish the "charges" dismissed, and keep QUESTIONING!""

But don't MOTION and then DEMAND their claim if they have one , if not DEMAND the session to be dismissed?

So the WISH is the Living persons WILL at the moment?

But is not a motion?

YUP! No "understanding" involved.

By doing so this also brings out all their dificincies in the case at habd too

Ask for everyone's credentials. That one drives them nuts!

Is that the same as asking for their standing Scott?

No. That's another one :D

*wait JUST for the moment the Judge begins talking at the start of the proceedings and then state* "Point-of-order...i RESERVE ALL RIGHTS...i WISH for the charges to be dismissed"- then, i start asking questions like this is the first-time ive ever heard about this thing called "The Law," and whatever i do, i dont Understand a FUCKING thing..pretty much, we're just disingenuously playing-dumb with them at this point? :/

I know the 4 credentials a police officer has: badge#, business card, id-card, warrant-card..... what are the CREDENTIALS of the Court-Officers i should be asking for?

also the word 'Dismissed is not the same as Discharged. I think Dismissed is that it may brought before the court again and Discharged is that the charges actually disappear

dismiss v. the ruling by a judge that all or a portion (one or more of the causes of action) of the plaintiff's lawsuit is terminated (thrown out) at that point without further evidence or testimony. This judgment may be made before, during, or at the end of a trial, when the judge becomes convinced that the plaintiff has not and cannot prove his/her/its case. This can be based on the complaint not alleging a cause of action, a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable, or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim. A defendant may be "dismissed" from a lawsuit, meaning the suit is dropped against that party. (See: dismissal)

To liberate or free; to terminate or extinguish. A discharge is the act or instrument by which a contract or agreement is ended. A mortgage is discharged if it has been carried out to the full extent originally contemplated or terminated prior to total execution.

Discharge also means to release, as from legal confinement in prison or the military service, or from some legal obligation such as jury duty, or the payment of debts by a person who is bankrupt. The document that indicates that an individual has been legally released from the military service is called a discharge.

The performance of a duty discharges it. An attorney may speak of discharging a legal obligation

oooooo...look what I found!

I know for a fact this was at the very bottom of this ocean...how long did it take you Chris to scroll-down the page to get it?

I'm so glad Derek is back. And Chris, while reading this post about RECUSE, I thought of "judges" that consider affidavits as MOTIONS, and ignore MISTAKES ! :D

Yeah...I'll consider you as recused mister unauthorized administrator :-D

Scott Duncan "Would you like to recuse yourself"? - This always works

This actually claims your rights, and turfs the Justice.

Scott Duncan The second you suspect it; "Your Honour 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. Would you please recuse yourself"?

(Note: ending that question with "..you sanctimonious, worthless parasitic bitch"? ...is optional.)

Derek Moran Do you have to call-out- "Point-of-Order" first, before you say that?

Scott Duncan No. In fact this would fall under OBJECTION. You OBJECT to a sanctimonious, worthless parasitic bitch ruling on the matter.

POINT OF ORDER serves to POINT out an error and/or MISTAKE.

Derek Moran You have mentioned before NOT to MOTION to/with the court, as you are unwittingly consenting to their jurisdiction, Scott?

Scott Duncan YES! Martin Sutton almost did that. Darren the cop was all for it. If Darren the cop says it, you probably should try figure out why you shouldn't... RIGHT MARTIN?

Eamonn O Brien If a writ is an order of the court on behalf of one party to the other how do you file for the court to issue one? Am I understanding it properly even...?

Scott Duncan Praecipe.