|
|
Post by weishaupt1776 on Dec 9, 2004 14:15:53 GMT -5
Prior to finding AILL, I started my "case" set for 1/19/05 w/ this mentioned default process. I show up at the motions hearing & inform the Aw/BD (attorney w/the black dress) that my affidavit has not been rebutted. He denies the MtD & all it's motions & says that my affidavit doesn't make sense. Remember, that when we take that approach, we are taking a position. When we take a position, we give them license to deny that position.
I have been preparing for trial using Marc's questions approach, but am still filing the default so that I have some paperwork for appeal.
I think that we should brainstorm and try to combine both methods. This may be irreconcilable do to one approach taking a position & the other not taking one.
But couldn't we just file the default docs to make a written record & then blindside 'em w/ the questions when they think we are going to take a position w/ the paperwork which we are only using as a decoy & a safety net for appeal?
This way we have 2 records. One being a proven default via written media. The other being a spoken record in court w/ the judge acting irrationaly by not informing us of the NCP (nature & cause of the Proceedings).
Could this work? Here's the viewpoint:
Judge calls you up knowing or not knowing of the paperwork.
Before you can even begin taking a position on your default, you still need to know the nature & cause. the only way you can possibly understand the NCP is by having responsive answers to this list of INSEPARABLE questions because YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY & DON"T UNDERSTAND. The only way you can understand BEFORE PROCEEDING is by having responsive answers to EACH & EVERY one of these questions. Is there a law against asking questions?
The snag is that the "judge" has the mandamus to instruct the clerk to enter the default. How do you get them to consider that w/o taking a position for them to deny?
Maybe incorporate AILL questions techniques related to the default.
Your Honor, If the prosecution is in default, can this matter at hand still proceed?
Some serious Kung Fu, kids.
|
|
heidi
Junior Member
first, a peaceful heart
Posts: 82
|
Post by heidi on Dec 9, 2004 14:26:07 GMT -5
Exactly, Weis... the mandamus is the sticking point, as the robe and the clerk are "as one." Neither will do anything to obstruct the other's interests. They will wriggle and bait and switch on the mandamus, and take up more of your precious time on this Earth. Sure, we could go ahead and file the default documents, but remember: you're spending your substance to construct and file these documents... in a situation where what you're working for is appeal. You don't expect success in the hearing, you are merely setting the robe up for incurable error you can show to the appellate robe. Marc's approach is faster and cheaper, and gets the same job (showing incurable error) done with less time lost to the burearats. my several centimes worth.  |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 9, 2004 19:12:49 GMT -5
I am fuzzy on this mandamus issue.
From what I know and understand, a mandamus is an order from a higher court to a lower court to perform a mandatory function of the office. It is also an order from a "judge" ordering an agent to perform a mandatory function. If there is any discretion at all, there is no remedy.
Also, if a prosecutor fails to answer the questions, it seem logical to me to file a motion for a failure to prosecute
If you are only preparing for an appeal, then what is the issue raised on appeal? What is the question for the appellate panel? Was the trial judge wrong to not order the clerk to enter the plaintiff's default?
|
|
heidi
Junior Member
first, a peaceful heart
Posts: 82
|
Post by heidi on Dec 9, 2004 19:42:45 GMT -5
From what I know and understand, a mandamus is an order from a higher court to a lower court to perform a mandatory function of the office. It is also an order from a "judge" ordering an agent to perform a mandatory function.
>> That is also my understanding of it.
If there is any discretion at all, there is no remedy.
>> Sure isn't.
Also, if a prosecutor fails to answer the questions, it seem logical to me to file a motion for a failure to prosecute
>> Yep.
If you are only preparing for an appeal, then what is the issue raised on appeal?
>> Preparing with the appeal in mind, I should have said.
What is the question for the appellate panel?
>>There are two separate issues here: mandamus, and working a hearing with appeal in mind. Asking the questions in a pre-trial or bench hearing situation which will box the lawyers into either dropping the charge or committing incurable error is the preparation for appeal.
>>Mandamus: On issues such as the ministerial duty of the clerk to file papers as titled and as directed, mandamus usually ends up being just another waste of time. Sometimes it works, but usually the judges DO ignore it (they exercise discretion instead). This is true even with the Great Writ. What worked as recently as five years ago is meeting increasingly heavy resistance from the entrenched Mob.
Was the trial judge wrong to not order the clerk to enter the plaintiff's default?
>> Sure was! Discretion again! The clerk MUST file the documents as instructed by the defendant, and the default should have been treated equally. Unless the defendant has hold of a tender spot and squeezes hard, though, they dance and squirm and usually wriggle out of that duty if they possibly can.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Dec 9, 2004 21:26:19 GMT -5
There is a Guy by the name of Clyde Hyde, that works the default process. Lawwork or lawworks on Yahoo Groups. He has a list of questions to File with the secretary of state or other records keepers to provide evidence of a voluntary binding contract bearing your signature that transfers ownership of your being or interest in property to the state. If they don't answer you can file a petition for a court order to get them to respond. They don't want to give up the game and call you a slave openly so they will admit there is nothing.
Now you can file this in any court case involving the state as evidence that the state admits you have no contract. Yes it is taking a position but basically it boxes them in and they Have to either Agree with Yick Wo or declare you a slave or proceed by ignoring it.
Now some paperwork like that combined with AiLL ??
Aren't publik serpents suppose to be bonded??
If they refuse a ministerial duty to allow you to file how bout asking,
If you are unable or unwilling to comply with my request for filing are you attempting to deny me my right to submit evidence in my defense?
Are you attempting to deny me a right to a fair trial?
If they say no then there is no reason not to comply. If they say yes then they have basically admitted to using threats against you.
In that case one might also ask . . .
Please provide evidence of your Article VI Oath of fidelity, as well as the policy number, name, and address of the underwriter of your bond.
I have researched some of the things they presume to give them authority and written a short paper.
I am also working on a short info brief on the history and nature of money. Will let y'all know when I'm done if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 9, 2004 22:12:55 GMT -5
Thanks for your input so far, guys & gals. Much appreciated. Unless I am totally missing something (which happens to me-That's why I'm on a forum mulling things over) , couldn't we use the default as a decoy or safety net? It seems logical to ask the AILL's because you don't know what's going on. But at the same time, couldn't we use the default as a vehicle for the box them in questions ? (BTI?'s)
Or is it just plain unnecessary because your nippin' it at the bud by not having the NCP explained to you & that they failed to prosecute?
Seems like that's where we're getting at.
However, couldn't we have the default as extra ammo in the appeal brief?
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 9, 2004 22:42:07 GMT -5
To be ammo on appeal, I think it has to be something the prosecutor is required by some law to respond to. I am unaware of any that can be cited though. That is one of the reasons for requesting judicial notice, it is mandatory no matter where you are. One example is in the federal rules of evidence rule 201.
As far as the bond, the feds used to be, but, not anymore. If you have proof the feds are bonded, I would like to see it. The so-called "states" also used to be bonded. Most do not do it anymore and "self-insure."
In Arizona the "state" policy is sold to another company, I believe it is still New York Fire and Causuality. All employees, including judges, are insured for ten MILLION for acts and omissions, including CRIMES, while on the job.
In Arizona, judges who refuse to grant a habeas corpus petition (I mean getting the prisoner into court for a hearing, not actually granting relief) forfeit $5,000 of their bond. I had two judges refuse a habeas and filed claims with RISK MANAGEMENT, the holders of the policy.
Result? Nothing. Talk about a bureaucracy. It would require a court case to be filed and I couldn't be bothered wasting more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Dec 9, 2004 22:50:01 GMT -5
[snip . . . ] As far as the bond, the feds used to be, but, not anymore. If you have proof the feds are bonded, I would like to see it. The so-called "states" also used to be bonded. Most do not do it anymore and "self-insure." In Arizona the "state" policy is sold to another company, I believe it is still New York Fire and Causuality. All employees, including judges, are insured for ten MILLION for acts and omissions, including CRIMES, while on the job. [snip . . . ] Marc, I did not know they were not bonded anymore. Thanks. Q: How can they self insure? Everyone knows the Govt. is broke. All they use is FRN's. I had to read that last sentence quoted here several times. I thought you said they were insured for 10 Million acts of omissions and crimes and that would explain why they only need a hand full of judges to oppress the people if each one can do 10 million crimes while in office. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 10, 2004 22:16:00 GMT -5
Marc, Q: How can they self insure? Everyone knows the Govt. is broke. All they use is FRN's. They base it on the ASSETS of the "state." Bureaucrats think they own everything. Think of the liquidation sale they could have.  |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 11, 2004 7:30:18 GMT -5
Yup, imagine that your in this nationwide private club who assumes it's own authority by judging how 250 million people should conform to the written opinions of men & women, most of whom are also members of that private club.
Imagine that this private club also somehow has access to anti-social men & women, most of whom hopefully don't have too high of an IQ in case they figure things out, with guns & badge which signifies that it's o.k. to kill you as long as they are "on the job."
Also imagine they also have a license, written in the 30's, which explains that 250million people's property really belongs to the private club.
It is now possible to "self insure" your private club for any action due to the availability of 250million people's property & the "legal" ability to "extinguish titles" to it by using armed & badged minions
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 31, 2004 13:37:43 GMT -5
... Maybe incorporate AILL questions techniques related to the default. Your Honor, If the prosecution is in default, can this matter at hand still proceed? Some serious Kung Fu, kids. Old topic here, but I was wondering if anyone involved in discussing this topic has come up with any way of integrating these two strategies in dealing with court proceedings etc. i.e. how to handle the potential problem if you have appeared to take a position in writing... At least I think that is what was being talked about  |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 31, 2004 13:57:22 GMT -5
You are correct regarding the subject matter. I believe it can reasonably be concluded that the default approach is one in which it involves taking a position whereas it cannot be reconciled with the approach of boxing them in w/questions, which involves not taking a position; hereinto setforth, ab initio, onomotopeia LOL!.
The only time to take a position is when we use their response or non-response to our questions either at trial or in an appeal situation.
Thanks for bringing the thread up again, DD.
|
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 31, 2004 14:44:18 GMT -5
|
|
