There are some really basics of all this I do not understand why people do not grasp right up front -- BEFORE THE BULLETS START FLYING! What I refer to are things like jurisdiction which is always determined by the plaintiff when he FILES his suit. If he avoids specificity, the court practice and procedure is to ASSUME the plaintiff wanted the court to select jurisdiction. That said the judge will always pick his favorite and that which seated him in the first place – EQUITY! Equity is assumed when a case is filed dumb (Without voice) to be a situation where no OTHER jurisdiction “has/had what it takes” to review the facts and make determination; this because other law is found to fall short of containing elements adequate to deal with the matter at hand. This would of course mean in pirate court that common law is inadequate and so with that decision out went a TRIAL BY A JURY OF ONES PEERS! Now you may still get the cheap substitute, a JURY TRIAL, BUT THEREIN WILL BE AN ENTIRELY NEW BALL GAME WHERE THE Equanimous judge will conduct the court and the court becomes a chorus before him, the conductor! In equity thwe magistrate becomes both the “TRIER OF FACT” AND THE “DETERMINATE OF THE LAW”, its applicability and enforcement
Another rudimentary thing is who you say you are. If you want to MAKE AN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE EQUANIMOUS JUDGE (Say MAGISTRATE) as a person proper to be there, a “PERSON” you shall so appear and so remain. PERSONS do not have any common law standing. What you have said there is that you are that “Person” who has an interest in the matter sufficient to properly appear before the court. Now if you chose “pro se” as representing your self, that means you are rightfully in the right court but you claim not to be a “ward of the STATE! YOU STILL HAVE NOT OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT as it usually and normally appears in session (Not “at action” or brought to order or under way). As the plaintiff calls the jurisdiction and form of law for the case he wishes to be heard, that is why it is always necessary to put the shoe on the other foot and make a COUNTER-CLAIM which thereby demands precedence in settlement as it affects both the status of controversy as well as the strength of the claim first presented and the claim’s parameters are the first order of business. If your claim is for fraud, then the Plaintiff must first prove authenticity of his claim against you before the case can continue. Remember ,”Failed to state a case against which relief may be granted”? These are just a few of the often seemingly endless procedural details one must be aware of and they are seldom as far fetched as might first be envisioned. You just have to know the levers and wheels to move to thereby move the court into your command. As everything about all the courts will be de facto and stacked against you if you ALLOW it, a body needs to be aware of what to do just to steer his case to confront the fraud and move to De Jure. The universal rules are that a De Facto office has jumped into an vacant – not empty – seat of authority in order to fulfill the duties and obligations of the office. That means the rightful authority was established to do a certain public good and that construction, along with and according to its pre-existing framework and assignments must be accomplished De Facto as near De Jure as can be followed. The pirates are occupying their enemy’s seats now (We being the enemy) only because the De Jure rightful holders of the office have gone from it! ~Hal~ --- On Sat, 10/17/09, MadDogMarine <[email protected]> wrote: From: MadDogMarine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Jurisdiction To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, October 17, 2009, 2:52 PM A few questions If I may? On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Lund <mccloedskilt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > I brought the suit If you brought suit, by default that means you want the court to have jurisdiction to remedy the wrong of your injury. That jurisdiction, once held by the court, will mean the court can rule for you or against you. >against my employer in District Court for violating the > law but it seems that the judge knew the lawyers and he refused to let me > into court and kept me out by writing "civil minutes" (probably written by > his legal clerks and signed by him) and taking my case off the calendar > each time I filed a paper. I take it he did this AFTER he granted the "motion to dismiss" to your employer? as you stated below. Perfectly within his authority since the case has been dismissed and no more filings will or can be accepted for the case. > > I was pro se and did not have anything in my papers about jurisdiction. I > filed a motion claiming that the judge never had jurisdiction in the first > place since none was argued in my papers or in open court. I'm learning a > little at a time but I need to know if I can do anything more. Make sure I understand!. You wanted the judge to have jurisdiction while he rules in your favor but not have jurisdiction when he rules against you? > > The judge claimed that I gave him jurisdiction because I cited federal laws > BUT the judge did not abide by those laws and claimed jursidiction anyway. > It seems to me that if the judge denied me what the law demands then he > has lost jurisdiction even if he had it to begin with, is this not true? If you are the plaintiff in a civil action(breach of contract?), and you brought the original action, you are requesting the judge to have jurisdiction to make a determination. > The judge did NOT abide by the letter or the meaning of the law. This is why you object during the proceeding so these issues can be brought up on appeal. > > My papers had all the law that I needed to prove that my employer was wrong > and at fault as well as case law but again the judge denied me everything > and accepted my employers lawyers lies. > > However, because of bad advice, which is the norm from this person Stan > Antlocer who puts on seminars in the Simi Valley in California and who was > supposed to be doing my paperwork, which when 'done' was such a mess that > it was almost unreadable, he did not answer a motion to dismiss and the > judge as he promised and the judge threw it out. A judge has no choice but to throw it out if there is no answer. By no answer, you basically agreed with the defendant's motion to dismiss. > > In addition, my employers "Garnishment Specialist" signed a paper swearing > that she had received a LEVY in my name, not a "Notice of Levy" but a LEVY > and there is no LEVY in existance. The courst have already ruled that a > "Notice of Levy" is not enough. They have??? VIII. Notice of Levy: A popular argument currently circulating is that a mere notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus may not be used for tax collection purposes. The courts have not accepted this idea. 1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955) 2. Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843, 844-45 (1st Cir. 1962) 3. United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971) 4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir. 1974) 5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986) 6. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959). > > Is she not liable to me for damages if she cannot come up with that LEVY? The law is on her side based upon the above court cases from Attorney Larry Becraft's web site. Was the action dismissed "with prejudice" or "without prejudice" With prejudice means you can't bring the same action again in his court on the same issues raised earlier. It is my opinion, every action for breach of contract should at least bring up the Fair Debt Procedures Collection Act. Specifically where the debtor denies the debt, the collector must obtain "verification" Verification is a legal term sworn to under penalty of perjury. That is why they had the Garnishment Specialists swear she obtained a Levy. BUT that is NOT VERIFICATION of the debt. That is why most recommend you have to sue the individual IRS agent and demand verification. If you have not demanded this earlier(provable) it will be a hard road to come back on since the IRS supposedly gave you every opportunity to do just that through all their administrative procedures. NOD, CDPH, Tax Court etc,etc. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (20) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1 New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___
