RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213

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 (4/22/2010 2:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there is no such distinction in the us, in the way you are making it out to be. you have no caselaw whatsoever to back that up. sure there is.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen are you saying that a party to a contract may not assign the account receivable arising under it to a third party, nor form a contract for services with and instruct a third party to obtain collection thereof on its behalf? or are you conflating this with the notion of third party rights in contract law? E I dont recall saying anything about them is this an offer for another lead off?

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I can get you into a contract you dont even know exists take you to court and sue the fuck out you over and you will never see it. this is a remarkable assertion (though not the error I indicated in Ron's post). please enlighten us as to how one might become party to a contract which, being ignorant as to its existence, - one is unaware of the identity of the other party, and hence cannot have intended to create legal relations nor agreed any matter with that other party - one is unaware of what consideration one must provide and what consideration one might receive and is thereby unable to provide or seek performance E beneficiary

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:58:46 PM)
third party rights then? the capacity of a third party deriving benefits under a contract to sue the parties to that contract? not generally allowed under English law, except for the Contracts (Rights Of Third Parties) Act or in certain other situations where "reliance" can be established. E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaintIntensity did someone say "delusional" no but we all all ears whatcha got? you are spouting more crap with each passing day well aint seen you step up to the plate with anything, typical. you've never sued anyone successfully only an idiot would puke all over like that one. you don't work wow your really on a roll now gomer you are on here 24/7 to all intents hardly show a case - ONE - that supports ANY of your BS - and a REAL case, not some net hearsay BS HAHA read my lips -- fuck you LMAO Hope that hleps. hint (there is your proof) maybe one where the court has been proven to be "Admiralty" maybe one where a case has been thrown out based on your net-spread BS and lies ouee ouee oh that hurts so bad tickle me more baby! Hey you gotta take lessons from kitten I mean I jerk to that shit. now you can create contracts they do not even know about and sue them successfully based on that? another drowning illiterate. laughable - and pure RealOne no-life-no-friend lies (as ever) Great investigation gomer pyle next you will be able to create a life and career for yourself sad yes you are

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:02:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen third party rights then? the capacity of a third party deriving benefits under a contract to sue the parties to that contract? not generally allowed under English law, except for the Contracts (Rights Of Third Parties) Act or in certain other situations where "reliance" can be established. E well and it depends on the setup, but for all intents sounds about right.

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:05:09 PM)
good - so then you appear to be arguing that the parties to a contract may sue a third party deriving benefits under that contract? even where, and specifically as indicated, the third party has no knowledge of either the contract, the parties or the benefit purportedly arising to him? E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:15:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen good - so then you appear to be arguing that the parties to a contract may sue a third party deriving benefits under that contract? even where, and specifically as indicated, the third party has no knowledge of either the contract, the parties or the benefit purportedly arising to him? E you cant sue the beneficiary under the contract, when I was thinking 3rd party interloper was in my mind. cha ching! yes they can but only by construing the nom de geurre as the trustee and improperly attaching personal title as the surety. courts here made and continue to make most of their money that way.

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:19:32 PM)
So, we're back to the capitalisation of names in legal documents and court proceedings E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:21:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen So, we're back to the capitalisation of names in legal documents and court proceedings E well from my research yer lordy coky cola was one of the wonderful who took commerce into fantasy land and dragged the people right in behind it. "person"

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:29:21 PM)
how about a response that isnt nonsense? now, it could be that youre talking about third party proceedings? where someone not named as a party in an action files a sort of counterclaim on another party which has the effect of bringing the third party into the proceedings, whether under the same cause of action or another cause of action arising between the summoning party (the defendant one would presume) and the third party? E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:39:36 PM)
no you had it right the first time. In admiralty maritime mechantile take your pick they had to obtain parity to create a method by which the corporation could sue the corporeal body, but by proxy. That all cap name serves as your sole corporation. I assume its the same over there by you. YOu never ever zippo ever see a claim by WHOEVER vs Lady:Ellen. Its always WHOEVER vs LADY ELLEN If you think that is by accident try this sometime, WHOEVER vs :lady-ellen: and watch the attorneys shit. The paper will never leave the office. Or do this :lady-ellen: vs :who-ever: aka WHOEVER and make sure the whoever is an attorney LMAO. I assume you know what I am doing here [EWG]

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:43:28 PM)
My dear, if I had any belief that I knew what you were on about, I should consult my GP without delay. E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:48:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My dear, if I had any belief that I knew what you were on about, I should consult my GP without delay. E there is no attorney in this country that has his shit remotely in one basket that will accept a mail for instance if you address it like :scum-bag: [Attorney] a.k.a. SCUM BAG ATTORNEY dba CROOK FIRM INC you can have fun with that. provided you send it registered with a signature card. gauranteed refused every time. The question is do you know why?

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:53:57 PM)
Personally, I wouldnt sign for anything like that either if I were an attorney - it would immediately rouse my suspicion that something was up. If someone wants to deliver documents to me then I should expect ordinary post, and if the documents are legal documents then I should expect them served in the normal way. E

SohCahToa -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:53:58 PM)
What you are probably finding Real0ne is that the automated mail system has problems processing addresses made up of letters cut out of papers and magazines.

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:56:42 PM)
Anyway, I've checked with the Pope and apparently I may go to bed. G'night. E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 3:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Personally, I wouldnt sign for anything like that either if I were an attorney - it would immediately rouse my suspicion that something was up. If someone wants to deliver documents to me then I should expect ordinary post, and if the documents are legal documents then I should expect them served in the normal way. E geeeeeuzs why are you being so obtuse. TO: :lady-jane: [Ellen] aka LADY JANE ELLEN dba ELLEN LAW FIRM

rulemylife -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 4:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen good - so then you appear to be arguing that the parties to a contract may sue a third party deriving benefits under that contract? even where, and specifically as indicated, the third party has no knowledge of either the contract, the parties or the benefit purportedly arising to him? E you cant sue the beneficiary under the contract, when I was thinking 3rd party interloper was in my mind. cha ching! yes they can but only by construing the nom de geurre as the trustee and improperly attaching personal title as the surety. courts here made and continue to make most of their money that way. [sm=insane.gif] Gosh Oliver Wendell, you sure do have a way with that there lawyerly type talk. It's pure gibberish, but I'm sure you're impressing Pahunk and some of the other sycophants who dwell on your every word.

SohCahToa -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 4:14:05 PM)
I thought this was a thread about brain surgery, you mean it's about the law?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875