VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (Full Version)

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



Message


Real0ne -> VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 9:44:19 AM)

with this kind of corruption?

We talk and talk and talk about left and right up and down and the rubber meets the road right here:

This is a young lady who went to court over foreclosure.

quote:

snip;
Just went to a hearing yesterday, was FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM COURT ROOM for calling the court on its abuse of discretion and violation of my due process. After being removed, the bank's attorney proceeded to testify ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS without being sworn in. They are so confident about their power they did not even bother calling the absentee witness on the phone as planned, the attorney made the statements to the magistrate. (My 4 witnesses told me what happened after the armed goon forcibly removed me.) The corrupt magistrate proceeded to grant the order authorizing sale of my home.

This is what really happens when you try to make them follow their own rules.

BTW, I did everything by the Rules, proper court room procedure (Jurisdictionary), and had the Rules of Civil Procedure, case law for my state, etc.

NONE of it mattered.

I tossed a monkey wrench into their RING OF THEFT and they were pissed. Today I am feeling like we are screwed. If this is what happens when we do not let them steamroll over us, then the courts are beyond repair, and these magistrates, judges, and attorneys all need.........SNIP.... Now you know what really happens, SNIP you have the REAL story.

This is the problem people are running into with the courts in EVERY part of the country.

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.

So how does VOTE THE BUMS OUT solve anything regarding the courts in our lifetime?   really?




mnottertail -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 9:52:42 AM)

Really?  There is no viable or credible evidence of the truth of this lady's rant.  That would be the first issue requiring establishment.




popeye1250 -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 1:43:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Really?  There is no viable or credible evidence of the truth of this lady's rant.  That would be the first issue requiring establishment.


Perhaps but "VOTE THE BUMS OUT" is a great sentiment to take with you to the polls on November 2nd.




rulemylife -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 2:16:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.



Um, Mr. Chief Justice, I do believe you are not correct.

In fact, that is the purpose of having an attorney, so they can represent you.




Termyn8or -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:14:27 PM)

Doesn't matter anyway. Anything the lawyer could say would be hearsay.

T




willbeurdaddy -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:42:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.



Um, Mr. Chief Justice, I do believe you are not correct.

In fact, that is the purpose of having an attorney, so they can represent you.



He's half correct. The client must wave attorney client privilege. If he does the attorney can testify.




THELADY -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:44:16 PM)

vote the bums out would make a great diffrence, in a couple ways.

they appoint many of the justices.

many in congress are lawyers and as such will not do anything that is not in favor of their profession.

the question remains, is
this story is true, and was the person in question making a complete ass of themselves?.




rulemylife -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:47:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.



Um, Mr. Chief Justice, I do believe you are not correct.

In fact, that is the purpose of having an attorney, so they can represent you.



He's half correct. The client must wave attorney client privilege. If he does the attorney can testify.


No, he's not right at all.

He is equating representing a client with testifying for the client.

There are cases heard everyday when the client never steps foot into the courtroom.




JstAnotherSub -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:50:43 PM)

I read the OP twice, and I swear I aint gotta clue wtf it is sposed to mean.

Politics.  Sheesh.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 3:51:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.



Um, Mr. Chief Justice, I do believe you are not correct.

In fact, that is the purpose of having an attorney, so they can represent you.



He's half correct. The client must wave attorney client privilege. If he does the attorney can testify.


No, he's not right at all.

He is equating representing a client with testifying for the client.

There are cases heard everyday when the client never steps foot into the courtroom.



He explicity said an attorney cannot testify on belhalf of a client, and he is correct UNLESS there is a waiver of privilege. You are the one obfuscating the issue with "representation".




rulemylife -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 5:49:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

He explicity said an attorney cannot testify on belhalf of a client, and he is correct UNLESS there is a waiver of privilege. You are the one obfuscating the issue with "representation".


Look back at the original post and do your best to understand the context, then come back and talk to me.

Wait, nevermind.

I don't really have that kind of patience.

The allegation of an attorney testifying was made by a nutcase who was so belligerent that she was forcibly escorted out of the court.

I don't really know what to say to someone who believes attorneys routinely testify on behalf of their clients.






joether -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 6:36:51 PM)

Since this is not a 'make believe' story, and one that does infact exist; where is the source for this material? What state? who are the people involved? Did some news media report this?

What is the background on the events of the court case? The lack of real information, makes it easy for someone to style this story to one's political belief. What did this person say/do....exactly....that got them thrown out of the court room? Is there a transscript? Video?





Lucylastic -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 6:44:14 PM)

good luck with that Joe, I found two links, one was a forum, the other a quesionable blog entry with nothing to point to any "reality based information"




Hippiekinkster -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 6:48:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

good luck with that Joe, I found two links, one was a forum, the other a quesionable blog entry with nothing to point to any "reality based information"

That's why I have "RealOne" on iggy. Nothing but meaningless drivel. Waste of precious time.




rulemylife -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 7:01:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Since this is not a 'make believe' story, and one that does infact exist; where is the source for this material? What state? who are the people involved? Did some news media report this?

What is the background on the events of the court case? The lack of real information, makes it easy for someone to style this story to one's political belief. What did this person say/do....exactly....that got them thrown out of the court room? Is there a transscript? Video?




I don't know, you'll have to ask RealOne.

My guess is it came from one of the conspiracy sites he likes so much, which may explain why he seems to have forgotten to post a link.




Real0ne -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 8:21:07 PM)

fr

well I only have permission to post what I did.  The battle has just begun and she does not want more released at this time.

Term as usual hit it right on.

Meantime here is something entertaining for you all.

1. To what or whom is an attorney’s first duty?
We consult the latest Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4 for the answer below:

§ 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
“His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

The office of attorney is indispensable to the administration of justice and is intimate and peculiar in its relation to, and vital to the well-being of, the court. An attorney has a duty to aid the court in seeing that actions and proceedings in which he is engaged as counsel are conducted in a dignified and orderly manner, free from passion and personal animosities, and that all causes brought to an issue are tried and decided on their merits only; to aid the court…”

2. What is the legal relationship between an attorney and his/her client?

§§ 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
“…and the term is synonymous with “attorney”. Therefore, anyone advertising himself as a lawyer holds himself out to be an attorney, an attorney at law, or counselor at law.

If one appears before any court in the interest of another and moves the court to action with respect to any matter before it of a legal nature, such person appears as an “advocate”, as that term s generally understood. The phrase “as an advocate in a representative capacity,” as used in the statute regulating the practice of law, implies a representation distinct from officer or other regular administrative corporate employee representation.

In England and her colonies a “barrister” is a person entitled to practice as an advocate or counsel in the superior courts. A “solicitor” is a person whose business it is to be employed in the care and management of suits depending in courts of chancery. In the great majority of the states of the Union, where law and equity are both administered by the same court, it has naturally come about that the two offices of attorney at law and solicitor in chancery have  practically been consolidated, although in the federal equity practice the term “solicitor” is in general use; but in some states the office of solicitor in chancery is a distinct and separate office from that of attorney at law.

A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim or defending against a suit in a court of justice; one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for his fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit; one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called “wards of the court” in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

§ 3. Nature of Right to Practice
While it has been broadly stated that the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right, but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise, the practice of law is not a matter of grace but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and moral character.”

Library references
Attorney and Clients
“The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right. Nor is the right to practice…”

3. What is a ward of the court?

“Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d. 189, 190.

Their rights must be guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F, 2d 289, 292.  See Guardianship”

(Are you an infant or person of unsound mind?)
4. Do you need to challenge jurisdiction? Better read the following, particularly “…because if pleaded by an attorney…”

“In propria persona /in pröwpryəpersównə/. In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se.”

Conclusions of law:
1. When you hire an attorney, you become a ward of the court and a second class citizen and you admit the jurisdiction of the court in the matter at hand (which is in the fiction since all courts today are corporate; so you’d be indicating that you are a surety for a civilly dead entity.

2. You can’t hire an attorney if you want to challenge jurisdiction.

3. If you want to challenge jurisdiction, the only way you can do it is as a “sui juris” and/or “in propria persona”.

quote:

By PRE-senting yourself, you are competent and must be respected by your public servants. Their failure to act properly is grounds for their removal from public office.

When you hire an attorney, you declare yourself incompetent to speak for yourself and in need of court direction. You are a ward of the court. I can speak for myself and so can you. With a basic understanding and your refusal to let those issues slide, the court is forced to act in your interest.

Failure to do so establishes a “Conspiracy against rights” 18 USC 241by the judge and attorney to deny you your rights in court. Contact the US Attorney’s Office and file a “Criminal Complaint”. If they refuse, jurisdiction is established for “JAG” in “Admiralty Jurisdiction” 28 USC 1333. 


Its really quite simple.....if you cannot fix your car and have to hire someone to fix it for you, suffice to say you are incompetent to fix a car, hence under the direction of the mechanic.

fun!



BUT

the point still remains what good does VOTING THE BUMS OUT DO YA with court systems that operate like this and this barely scratches the surface.








rulemylife -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 8:38:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well I only have permission to post what I did.  The battle has just begun and she does not want more released at this time.



Well, she gave me permission to laugh uncontrollably.

[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]







tazzygirl -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 9:51:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

with this kind of corruption?

We talk and talk and talk about left and right up and down and the rubber meets the road right here:

This is a young lady who went to court over foreclosure.

quote:

snip;
Just went to a hearing yesterday, was FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM COURT ROOM for calling the court on its abuse of discretion and violation of my due process. After being removed, the bank's attorney proceeded to testify ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS without being sworn in. They are so confident about their power they did not even bother calling the absentee witness on the phone as planned, the attorney made the statements to the magistrate. (My 4 witnesses told me what happened after the armed goon forcibly removed me.) The corrupt magistrate proceeded to grant the order authorizing sale of my home.

This is what really happens when you try to make them follow their own rules.

BTW, I did everything by the Rules, proper court room procedure (Jurisdictionary), and had the Rules of Civil Procedure, case law for my state, etc.

NONE of it mattered.

I tossed a monkey wrench into their RING OF THEFT and they were pissed. Today I am feeling like we are screwed. If this is what happens when we do not let them steamroll over us, then the courts are beyond repair, and these magistrates, judges, and attorneys all need.........SNIP.... Now you know what really happens, SNIP you have the REAL story.

This is the problem people are running into with the courts in EVERY part of the country.

Attorneys cannot testify on behalf of a witness (lawfully) regardless of being sworn in and should the attorney be sworn in that creates a conflict and violation of the ROP and they must recuse themselves from the matter.

So how does VOTE THE BUMS OUT solve anything regarding the courts in our lifetime?   really?



Wow, your OP is word for word from this site.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/152385-what-good-does-do-vote-bums-out.html#post2979121




Real0ne -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 10:54:10 PM)


so is your point to drag this from the issue that nothing you can do will change the government because its out of reach and out of your control?

you get to VOTE THE BUMS OUT and like their predecessors the rah rah heros of the new day appoint a new group of their pals to courts to protect them?  So how is it exactly that your vote counts? 

One experience everyone should have is taking a traffic ticket to court and the judge threatening to hold them in contempt of court if they bring up the constitution one more time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Jpo2PpgvE

that was a piss poor recording this one is better





kittinSol -> RE: VOTE THE BUMS OUT! (9/28/2010 10:56:57 PM)

"Votes the bums out", says the arsehole.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875