RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:36:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am not a scumbag fucking attorney doesnt mean that I dont kick th eshit out of them in court. <<<< didnt you say that right above me?



So, you havent the attention span of a gopher.....fine.

do cite us a case wherein you kicked the shit out of an attorney in court. we should be able to find it online, and a newspaper accounting of it.





how many times do I have to explain it to your retard ass that it is removed from  the public record.

Fuck man you have no damn clu how the court system works.

Like most things, retards depend on a club over the head to comprehend and most of the time that does not work either.




mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:46:22 AM)

They cannot be removed from the public record they are caselaw.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/carg/rg_sec8.pdf 
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan/michigan-state-court-records

or perhaps your cases were not tried here on  earth?  some other state perhaps?





Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:46:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

More on the capitalization issue...I dug into my old papers and came across an old document...an issue between myself and none other than the Crown (in the person of Queen Bessie II), and guess what...neither her name nor mine are capitalised. I would have thought that in a case involving the Crown (which is the ultimate conspirator behind all these shennanigans...oh wait that's the Pope isn't it...so sorry) would be certain to employ the ALL CAPS ruse, but apparently not. In fact the only legal document I can find in my admittedly patchy files that lists my name in caps is a subpoena to appear as a witness...go figure.





Right they are representing the crown in the name of the PERSON of the queen.

Thats the way it works. 

At least they spell out what they are doing whereas here they fake us out resulting in people being unaware of their real rights and like ron posted if there is any misconstruction on the part of the litigant (people), they nail them on the misconstruction rather than run with the intent of the socereign.

Of course when its reveresed they construe themselves at the advantage and turn is all around.

It would also depend on how old those docs are.  This stuff was not formal until about 1933ish in america.





Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:50:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They cannot be removed from the public record they are caselaw.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/carg/rg_sec8.pdf 
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan/michigan-state-court-records

or perhaps your cases were not tried here on  earth?  some other state perhaps?




I really dont want to waste my time digging through your links and again show where you are fucked in the head just to prove a point.  

You have not hit one right yet and I do not expect it anytime soon.

The bottom line is it is gone and I cannot even get at it.  The only records are my submissions to the court which are proof of nothing if you cannot reference it.

you will just sit here and cry that I made up the numbers.

Why dont you just get a fucking education instead.




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:53:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaintIntensity

shit like this makes me giggle - did someone listen to Team Chucklehead? NONE of his "escape clauses" have EVER succeeded in a US court. He is spouting BS - and knows its BS - its for entertainment purposes, not educational - as learning lots of untrue things scarcely counts as "education".

e.g.

"Eddie Ray Kahn has been described by the Los Angeles Times as a "veteran tax protester".[1] Kahn served time in prison for tax crimes from 1985 to 1987.[2] Kahn founded the group American Rights Litigators and ran the for-profit businesses "Guiding Light of God Ministries" and "Eddie Kahn and Associates." According to the U.S. Justice Department, all three organizations are or were illegal tax evasion operations.[3]
On October 12, 2006, Kahn was charged, with actor Wesley Snipes and Douglas P. Rosile,[4] with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371,[5] and one count of making or aiding and abetting the making of a false and fraudulent claim for payment against the United States, under 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.[6]
Kahn went to Panama after the 2006 indictment, but was arrested and returned to the United States for the trial. During much of the trial, Kahn remained in his jail cell, refusing to participate and claiming that the court had no jurisdiction.[2] News reports indicated that Kahn "has no legal training but insists on representing himself and has made several missteps and peculiar motions. For example, he sought to be immediately freed because the indictment lists his name in all capital letters, and he claimed U.S. attorneys have no jurisdiction because Florida supposedly was never ceded to the federal government".[7] ]


These motions were denied.[8]"





yeh thats one way for a judge to win.




pahunkboy -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:54:23 AM)

Then there are the loans from Rothschild to the Pope and the gold in the vaults.




mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:56:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Right they are representing the crown in the name of the PERSON of the queen.

Thats the way it works. 



No, that ain't the way it works,  even after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, lawsuits against the Sovereign in his or her personal, private capacity are still inadmissible in British law.




pahunkboy -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 10:57:35 AM)

The sun never sets on the Brutish Empire.




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:12:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Right they are representing the crown in the name of the PERSON of the queen.

Thats the way it works. 



No, that ain't the way it works,  even after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, lawsuits against the Sovereign in his or her personal, private capacity are still inadmissible in British law.


LOWER CANADA APPRECIATES YOUR POST!

An Act to amend the law relating to the civil liabilities and rights of the Crown and to civil proceedings by and against the Crown, to amend the law relating to the civil liabilities of persons other than the Crown in certain cases involving the affairs or property of the Crown, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (1947 c. 44) is an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party. The Act also reasserted the common law doctrine of Crown privilege but by making it, for the first time, justiciable paved the way for the development of the modern law of Public Interest Immunity.


Again that is for the chattel property of the crown. which is why they supreme court decision on corporations here not to long ago that the government propaganda whores swooped down enmasse dismissing every point I made on the matter out of hand.

Small world.

Now a fictitious person that cannot be injured can sue a real person without proxy that can be injured in fiction land with not redress or recourse in real land.

At least for upper canada.

Here even with that supreme court ruling that pesky fucking constitution for those who know how to invoke keeps getting in the damn way.

No wonder most of the founders were tortured and forced into bankruptcy.




Arpig -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:27:38 AM)

quote:

It would also depend on how old those docs are. This stuff was not formal until about 1933ish in america.
LOL I am not that old. They are from the 80s.




Musicmystery -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:30:24 AM)

quote:

or perhaps your cases were not tried here on earth?


Bingo.




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:31:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

It would also depend on how old those docs are. This stuff was not formal until about 1933ish in america.
LOL I am not that old. They are from the 80s.


it takes years to completely implement it

when I was a kid the cop had to prove someone was speeding now its guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

completely assbackwards thanks to this system




Musicmystery -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:35:11 AM)

quote:

when I was a kid the cop had to prove someone was speeding now its guilty until you prove yourself innocent.


Bullshit. You're tagged on radar. Proof.

I had a speeding ticket just last year--my attorney had it reduced to a parking ticket--no points, small fine.




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 11:44:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

when I was a kid the cop had to prove someone was speeding now its guilty until you prove yourself innocent.


Bullshit. You're tagged on radar. Proof.

I had a speeding ticket just last year--my attorney had it reduced to a parking ticket--no points, small fine.



not in those days.  you were clocked with a speedometer and it took 2 cops one to be a witness.




Musicmystery -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 12:20:19 PM)

Which still leaves your statement incorrect.




LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 12:31:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

One word of caution: be very careful if you want to play around and do that on a brief because it will get kicked out and they will never give you a reason and you could severely fuck up someone defense.  There are very and I do mean very fine points in law here that you need to fully understand before you run out and play with this stuff.

If its a case you are in well no biggy if you dont mind losing before you start.

So for and on the record nothing I say is to be construed as legal advice and is for educational purposes only!




Well, the cases I've done - and incidentally have never lost to date - have all been breach of contract cases, mostly me doing the plaintiff part (claimant here now) but occasionally the defendant. This is rather dodgy here, since I'm not a qualified lawyer and shouldnt conduct litigation unless the court allows it - so far they have allowed it because, it seems, they appear happy that I know what I'm doing.

So, I dont know what to say

E




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 12:56:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Which still leaves your statement incorrect.


regardless if you can slice it, the point remains made.




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 12:59:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

One word of caution: be very careful if you want to play around and do that on a brief because it will get kicked out and they will never give you a reason and you could severely fuck up someone defense.  There are very and I do mean very fine points in law here that you need to fully understand before you run out and play with this stuff.

If its a case you are in well no biggy if you dont mind losing before you start.

So for and on the record nothing I say is to be construed as legal advice and is for educational purposes only!




Well, the cases I've done - and incidentally have never lost to date - have all been breach of contract cases, mostly me doing the plaintiff part (claimant here now) but occasionally the defendant. This is rather dodgy here, since I'm not a qualified lawyer and shouldnt conduct litigation unless the court allows it - so far they have allowed it because, it seems, they appear happy that I know what I'm doing.

So, I dont know what to say

E


well yeh because you would be re-presenting someone and of course there are liabilities attached beyond your own personal welfare.

most cases imo can run back to breach of trust and or contract.




LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 1:37:42 PM)

so it would be different if I were suing in my own name or conducting my own defence?

E




Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/23/2010 1:51:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

so it would be different if I were suing in my own name or conducting my own defence?

E



I would have to think about that.

Off the top I am not sure because although we are very similar there are subtle differences even in the same form and forum.

Most of my study in your law is in regard with how the sovereign kings would conduct their court before they had the staffing where they the king was the court. since that part in the common law does apply here






Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625