RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (Full Version)

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



Message


Jeffff -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 8:03:47 AM)

Have you tried medication?




Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 8:47:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Have you tried medication?



No thanks I am not into stoopid pills.


So then you want to pretend this country, (natives not withstanding), was not under the king prior to the creation of the so called government?

It sounds to me like you my need to get off the meds.




mnottertail -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 8:52:31 AM)

Dear esquire shithouse,

since you are incapable of showing one individual lawsuit that succeeded in the claims of 'sovereign citizen' outside the realm of the US Law and Constitution, and since I can show you (and have) many (the net is rife with these cases) that have failed, why don't you give us the legal layout that wins?  So far, you have shown absolutely nothing that is legal, or is even a plausible legally grounded argument, you have shown us plenty ravings of a lunatic. But not one firm legal precept.


Oh, yeah, and give us all the benefit of your legal analysis on how the provost marshals fucked up that governor thing as well, since you were spewing your untutored opinion on how that was legal and those boys and girls were done.

Or is it that maybe there ain't nothing to this sovereign bullshit whatsoever?




Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 9:06:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Dear esquire shithouse,

since you are incapable of showing one individual lawsuit that succeeded in the claims of 'sovereign citizen' outside the realm of the US Law and Constitution, and since I can show you (and have) many (the net is rife with these cases) that have failed, why don't you give us the legal layout that wins?  So far, you have shown absolutely nothing that is legal, or is even a plausible legally grounded argument, you have shown us plenty ravings of a lunatic. But not one firm legal precept.


Oh, yeah, and give us all the benefit of your legal analysis on how the provost marshals fucked up that governor thing as well, since you were spewing your untutored opinion on how that was legal and those boys and girls were done.

Or is it that maybe there ain't nothing to this sovereign bullshit whatsoever?


ok but why would a sovereign bring a case in your venue?

You dont even have a clue how courts work or you and the others that ask such uneducated questions simply would not ask them knowing the red face they will get.

Now if people were not such assholes out here I would have graciously given that information out a long time ago.




Termyn8or -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 9:10:30 AM)

I think Ron has made a reasonable request. You should try to come up with something.

And forget the meds, you are no more overzealous than an evangelical Christian. However the people who are preaching to you, like them guys, will take one statement out of the Bible and then turn 4,000 pages and give another quote. This discontinuity leads to misconclusions.

No matter what you find, you are not going to find yourself outside of the Constitution. Other types of jurisdictional challenges have succeeded, but even that is rare. Another thing is that in many cases where jurisdiction is successfully challenged the case is completely dropped. In most cases there will be little or no record, and most likely no transcript.

But you brought it up. It falls upon you to do this. Why do you think I don't harp on these things ? You have put yourself in this situation. You have even the most open minded questioning your credibility. It is up to you to do the research and find some suitable proof. Turn your attention towards that rather than quotes, and then you can tell them to take their meds.

Incidentally, if you're not up to it, I doubt you are up to a fight with the PTB. Keep that in mind.

T




Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 10:37:42 AM)



Term,

with all due respect, I offered to answer these types of things on the other side.    I have no obligation of performance to you or anyone else on this board to give up information I have worked to obtain or citations to said information because they "think" they have a legitimate challenge before I am damn well good and ready to do so if at all.

Now if they wouldnt be such cocktards about it and IF their motives were to share information in a learning capacity to all parties concerned rather than act like children and call me names as a result of the stooopid pills and koolaid they ate all their lives I would be more inclined to share it in more depth.  Plainly that is not the case.  You cant show people how to run before they can crawl and expect positive results.

Long story short I hear what you say man.  We try to bury and or correct all that patriot bullshit of yesteryear that as you admit did not work and the tables have turned and we are now getting remedy. 

Those who know the answer know, know that I already gave the answer just by asking the question the way I did.  Thats what makes these boards so much fun...  and of course the posers blow lots of smoke with vain attempts to dazzle us with their bullshit(and name calling).

Oh and btw the constitution tells us who or what is outside the constitution in black and white. 

quote:

Another thing is that in many cases where jurisdiction is successfully challenged the case is completely dropped. In most cases there will be little or no record, and most likely no transcript.


anyway thats one way, sort of back door but it should at least give the tards another clue.

What important of course is what I underlined.  If these shithouse lawyers out here had a clue that would have been the first thing they would have put up.




mnottertail -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 11:00:13 AM)

Another thing is that in many cases where jurisdiction is successfully challenged the case is completely dropped. In most cases there will be little or no record, and most likely no transcript.

This is absolutely and wholly untrue.

A coming into court by a party to a suit, either in person or through an attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission to a court's jurisdiction.
In a criminal prosecution, an appearance is the initial court proceeding in which a defendant is first brought before a judge. The conduct of an appearance is governed by state and federal rules of criminal procedure. The rules vary from state to state, but they are generally consistent. During an appearance, the judge advises the defendant of the charges and of the defendant's rights, considers bail or other conditions of release, and schedules a preliminary hearing. If the crime charged is a misdemeanor, the defendant may sometimes, depending on the local rules of court, enter a plea of guilty or not guilty at the initial appearance; if the crime is a felony, the defendant usually enters the plea at a later court proceeding. A criminal defendant may have an attorney present and may confer with the attorney during the appearance.
In some situations, a defendant may not need to appear in court in person and may even make an appearance by mail. A common example of this is when a person receives a traffic ticket and simply sends in a check for the amount of the fine.
An appearance is also a coming into court as a party to a civil lawsuit. Although an appearance can be made by either the plaintiff (the one who has sued) or the defendant (the one being sued), the term most often refers to the action of the defendant.
The subject of appearance is closely related to the subject of personal jurisdiction, which is the court's authority over an individual party. An appearance is some overt act by which the defendant comes before the court to either submit to or challenge the court's jurisdiction.
Any party can appear either in person or through an attorney or a duly authorized representative; the party need not be physically present. In most instances, an attorney makes the appearance. An appearance can also be made by filing a notice of appearance with the clerk of the court and the plaintiff, which states that the defendant will either submit to the authority of the court or challenge its jurisdiction. In a lawsuit involving multiple defendants, an appearance by one is not an appearance for the others. Valid service of process is not required before an appearance can be made.
Historically, appearances have been classified with a variety of names indicating their manner or significance. A compulsory appearance is compelled by process served on the party. A conditional appearance is coupled with conditions as to its becoming or being taken as a general appearance (defined later in this article). A corporal appearance indicates that the person is physically present in court. A de bene esse (Latin, "of well being," sufficient for the present) appearance is provisional and will remain good only upon a future contingency. A gratis (Latin, "free" or "freely") appearance is made by a party to the action before the service of any process or legal notice to appear. An optional appearance is entered by a person who is intervening in the action to protect his or her own interests, though not joined as a party. A subsequent appearance is made by a defendant after an appearance has already been entered for him or her by the plaintiff. Finally, a voluntary appearance is entered by a party's own will or consent, without service of process, although process might be outstanding.
The two most common categories of appearances are general and special.
General Appearance
Any action by which the defendant recognizes the jurisdiction of the court constitutes a general appearance. This is an unqualified submission to the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and is treated as the equivalent of a valid service of process.
By making a general appearance, the defendant agrees that the court has the power to bind her or him by its actions, and waives the right to raise any jurisdictional defects (e.g., by claiming that the service of process was improper). The defendant also waives the objection that the case is brought in the wrong venue. The defendant does not, however, waive any substantive rights or defenses, such as the claim that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, or authority to hear the particular type of case (e.g., a bankruptcy court will not hear personal injury cases).
Special Appearance
A special appearance is one made for a limited purpose. It can be made, for example, to challenge the sufficiency of the service of process. But most often, a special appearance is made to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. It prevents a default judgment from being rendered against the defendant for failing to file a pleading. (A default judgment is an automatic loss for failing to answer the complaint properly.)
When a defendant makes a special appearance, no other issues may be raised without that appearance's becoming a general appearance. If a party takes any action dealing with the merits of the case, the party is deemed to have made a general appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
If a challenge is successful and the court agrees that it does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, it will dismiss the action. If the court finds against the defendant on that issue, that decision can later be appealed.
The right to make a special appearance is almost universally recognized, except where abolished by statute. As a rule, leave of court (permission) must be obtained before a special appearance can be made, but this is not always the case.
Federal Rules
Federal courts and states that have adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have eliminated the distinction between a general and a special appearance. Instead of challenging the court's personal jurisdiction in a special appearance, a defendant can do so by use of a pretrial motion to dismiss the cause of action, or in an answer to the complaint. A removal proceeding, in which a defendant asks to have the case moved from state court to federal court, is regarded as a special appearance.
Limited Appearance
In a number of states, a defendant in a lawsuit based on quasi in rem jurisdiction may make a limited appearance. Quasi in rem is a Latin phrase for a type of jurisdiction in which the court has power over the defendant's property because it lies within the geographic boundaries of the court's jurisdiction. The presence of the property gives the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. To invoke quasi in rem jurisdiction, the court must find some connection between the property and the subject matter of the lawsuit.
A limited appearance enables a defendant to defend the action on the merits, but should the defendant lose, he or she will be held liable only up to the value of the identified property and not for all possible damages. A defendant who makes a limited appearance and wins the case can be sued again by the same plaintiff in a different court.
In states that have no provision for a limited appearance, a defendant can avoid being subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court by refusing to appear, thereby causing a default and a consequent forfeiture of the property. Or the defendant can submit to the court's personal jurisdiction, defend the case on its merits, and face the possibility of full liability. The defendant must decide which course of action is best, after comparing the value of the seized property with the damages being sought by the plaintiff and considering the likelihood of winning the case at trial.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for limited appearances in federal court but instead defer to state law on that issue. A slightly greater number of courts permit limited appearances than do not. The law of the jurisdiction in which the action is brought must be consulted to determine whether limited appearances are permitted.
Withdrawal
If an appearance has been entered through fraud or mistake or after the plaintiff's complaint has been materially amended, the discretion of the court may permit the appearance to be withdrawn. A proper withdrawal is treated as if no appearance at all had been entered in the case. A defendant who has withdrawn a general appearance may ask the court for leave to file a special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction.
If someone makes an unauthorized appearance on behalf of the defendant, it may be stricken or set aside by a motion of any party with an interest in the proceeding.
Delay or Failure to Appear
A defendant who fails to appear in court pursuant to a service of process might have a default judgment entered against her or him and be held in contempt of court. A failure to appear does not, however, result in a waiver of objections to the court's jurisdiction.
If a defendant fails to make an appearance in the time allotted by statute or court rules, he or she may lose certain rights. But if the circumstances warrant it, a court may extend the time of appearance.

In ALL cases the parties to the suit can petition it to remain in the public record.

So, since someone who is such a fucking wizard with the law, you sure don't know much about how this works, so even if they don't have jurisdiction, the dismissal will be a matter of record.... as these are:

http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-appellate-deadline.html

Dismissals cannot go away, it is a matter of constitutionality.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


We call this thing the 5th Amendment, colloquially...its part of the US Constitution, but you may have missed that since you know so little about law, and that document. 




Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 1:21:15 PM)


In ALL cases the parties to the suit

Whoever wrote whats above ^^^^^ that I wont argue that is the standard way to approach the matter but there are others.  My approach usually gets rid of it before the appearance date, hence it will never show up on the record.  Now three are several cases that have pounded sand up the guvs ass that will have a gag order placed on them but remain on the record.  Typical of tax cases won against them.

So If I am not a citizen what jurisdiction does that court have over me?  Zippo! Nadda.

Secondly as I pointed out they dont even have jurisdiction over you slaves if you got your shit together.  Again as I said before the 11th amendment stripped the courts of all their judicial power.

However on the flip side, being native to the land MY court is in session and I do announce it the second after I announce my disclaimer when crossing the bar.   While I agree that who ever wrote that top portion is correct the tend to omit the finer points of winning.

Oh and no needs a constitution to frag someone into court for murder or equity damages.

however if the guv wants to do that against someone like myself for murder to bad, the family would need to bring forth the suit and yes it takes a grand jury indictment "of the people" not the corporation in a capital case, and for equity the injured party can sue me directly.






thornhappy -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 5:52:57 PM)

Good luck with that murder defense.




Elisabella -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 6:10:29 PM)

quote:

however if the guv wants to do that against someone like myself for murder to bad, the family would need to bring forth the suit and yes it takes a grand jury indictment "of the people" not the corporation in a capital case, and for equity the injured party can sue me directly.


http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law




Termyn8or -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 8:41:20 PM)

"This is absolutely and wholly untrue."

Now now. Although your post is quite in depth, it does not consider certain things. But they are not at issue here. I didn't bring it up and the burden of proof is not upon me. I can barely find time to rabblerouse here, let alone do a bunch of research to prove what is in effect to this thread, a tertiary point at best. I merely pointed out that the ball is in Real's "court", not sure of the pun here.......

The fact is I could mention one name and make my point, but it doesn't make Real's point. However it is up to him to find it even as corroberative evidence to his claim(s). I've been with the common law people, and it is somewhat like a church. They will take a book and refer you to page 115 and then to page 256, with totally different aspects of law embodied in those different sections. That is what I pointed out mainly. Same tricks different venue. I'll not fall for it, I didn't then and I am not about to now. I'll buy the book, and I'll find out.

If I decide to engage the government in such a battle, I might just do it the old fashioned way. Bribes, extortion and really sharp lawyers.

I can indeed prove that jurisdiction is not based solely on lines on a map, but then you did not dispute that in the first place. However here and now is not the time.

This thread is simply not about my assertions. What you stated is true - 99.9% of the time. Becoming part of that 0.1% is not easy under the best of circumstances. And nothing I could say would go far in proving Real's assertion anyway, even if it were some scrolls found in the salt mines under Lake Erie or some shit. His assertion implies alot more than meets the eye. I don't even want to go into that.

T




subtee -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 8:44:29 PM)

realone you are such a nutjob freak I can't imagine why folks give you the respect of their discourse.

Nonetheless, they do. People I respect do this. So you go boy(i), whatever.




Dubbelganger -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 9:15:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

realone you are such a nutjob freak I can't imagine why folks give you the respect of their discourse.

Nonetheless, they do. People I respect do this. So you go boy(i), whatever.
I don't. I pay zero attention to his psychotic babblings. He/she/it/xxxyy/whatever is the first one I put back on FOAD when I resumed here. At Lushy's urging, I might add. [sm=jaw.gif]




subtee -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 9:55:21 PM)

I know but, Hippy, you didn't ever react to the Rachel Welch animal skin bikini...

~worriedtee




Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/20/2010 10:24:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

realone you are such a nutjob freak I can't imagine why folks give you the respect of their discourse.

Nonetheless, they do. People I respect do this. So you go boy(i), whatever.


foolish girl who has brought absolutely nothing what so ever, not even plausible bullshit to this discussion followed by none other than ass helmet who claims to have me on ignore but like the good hypocrite that he is tells everyone not to post to the thread and he drops by to post to it himself and call a few names.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger
I don't. I pay zero attention to his psychotic babblings. He/she/it/xxxyy/whatever is the first one I put back on FOAD when I resumed here.
At Lushy's urging, I might add.[image]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked016.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image]





what a fucking hypocrite loser.





DomKen -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/21/2010 7:22:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
No matter what you find, you are not going to find yourself outside of the Constitution. Other types of jurisdictional challenges have succeeded, but even that is rare. Another thing is that in many cases where jurisdiction is successfully challenged the case is completely dropped. In most cases there will be little or no record, and most likely no transcript.

Please stop peddling this bullshit.




Termyn8or -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/21/2010 7:32:25 AM)

You again.

Know what Ken, I'll peddle whatever I goddam well please. Who the fuck made you boss ?

T




DomKen -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/21/2010 7:49:15 AM)

There is a long accepted tradition that once something has been disproven that people stop making the same claim. As in your completely disproven 'challenge jurisdiction' claims have been thoroughly disproven so you should stop making claims about it.




cuckoldmepls -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/21/2010 8:06:13 AM)

I don't think the Supreme Court has the balls to disqualify him for President. They are too worried about race riots. This article is extremely interesting though.
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/04/entire-us-government-said-knows-obama-ineligible-for-office/




tazzygirl -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/21/2010 8:25:21 AM)

The article lies.

Per the article you posted...

quote:

The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.


You may want to read up on the following...


quote:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th anniversary of Proclamation 3309, signed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4), enacted into law on March 18, 1959;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


Whereas Hawaii is a place like no other, with people like no other, and bridges mainland United States to the Asia-Pacific region;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


Whereas Hawaii contributed to a more diverse Congress by electing--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-sr225/text




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02