You don't have to hire a lawyer to lose
Submitted by jruss133 on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 21:33
in
| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
this link no longer works
You can find the info here though:
http://library.georgegordon.com/node/1683
Pay close attention at the end.
He mentions that it is the State that brings the complaint against Joe Sixpack.
The State pays the salary of the Judge.
The State pays the salary of the Prosecutor.
It is the State's Court.
It is the State's agents(the State's Police, the State's Investigators) that are the witnesses against you, Joe.
Then, Joe, if you don't understand what is going on, the State will provide a Public Defender at their expense, or you could hire your own attorney, licensed by the State.
And that's what they call a "Fair Trial."
Joe, this is not a fair trial.
Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!
I launched a pro-se civil action in Charlotte
The case was "judge shopped" and went thru 4 judges.
The judge who finally dismissed my case "with prejudice" was a big recipient of election funds from my opponents law firm.
Like Kenny Rogers says "you gotta know when to hold up, you gotta know when to fold up.
A warning that needs to be
A warning that needs to be stated.
With the corrupt environment we live in today, anything you do with the judicial system is a crap shoot. It was difficult to find an honest judge in the 90's, today it's virtually impossible. In todays political environment I would try to avoid any contact with the judicial system at ALL COSTS. Our judicial system has become as corrupt and evil as the other two branches of government. You will be at the mercy of the personality of whatever judge you appear before. Make no mistake, there is no rule of law anymore. Justice is dead. I made this realization when I did my last case which went all the way to the US Supreme Court. It was the last case I did, and the last time I had any contact with the judicial system. We are at a point of anarchy. The only justice you will receive today is by the law you take into your own hands. Today if you are having a problem with someone you are better off stalking the guy and popping a cap in his head, or slitting his throat. The reality today is, it's easier to get away with murder than it is to get any justice from the current legal system. I know that sounds harsh but that is the reality of where we are at in this particular time in our history. You could get lucky with less serious matters, but don't count on it.
------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
The Law is The Law of Force
Sad as it is to say government is force and government is power and power is simply the ability to hurt someone.
Long ago when the government did what it was supposed to do at least sometimes by protecting lives and property and punishing lawbreakers upon instruction from a common Law jury, then government served a purpose. That purpose was more psychological than anything because never have all crimes been punished. What government did was give the people some assurance that they need not enforce the law all by themselves. The 24 justices of the peace would do it. Now the very thing which once punished the guilty and served to protect the innocent has itself become the lawbreaker.
That means you can't call on them for help anymore and you must avoid those gangsters at all costs.
Now that is indeed anarchy, just not everyone has noticed yet!
The courts have kidnapped millions and sold bonds on them to the tune of 60 trillion currently on deposit in the federal reserve bank new york. Cops kill innocent people every day with absolutely no consequences. Travelers are stopped on the roads by police gangs and robbed or even their cars stolen like mine was. Travelers are made to wait in line to be molested and robbed at the airports, train station, buses and even when arriving at their high school prom.
There is no law in a land where the people tolerate such thuggishness and unlawful acts.
People know not what the law is anymore, most think it is what they are told to do by their masters.
With no Law, no government, no living knowledge of The Law residing in the people, all hell is breaking loose in America. I hope and pray for the Ron Paul Revolution but I fear the majority of Americans are hollowed out morally, spiritually and intellectually.
The Anarchy and rampant lawlessness are merely disguised as order for now because the crimes are being conducted by highly organized units.. As the local criminals become more and more bold they will answer less and less to any man or central authority. The central authority is hollowed out too so the local thugs need not listen to them either. When the Indiana Supreme Court ruled there is no private property anymore they completely suspended The Law. By stating it is ok to go house to house without even a warrant they finally abandoned any pretense of Law and declared themselves openly as gangsters. They also declared open season on us by them and on them by us. If you have no place left to retreat to, then you must fight.
They always were gangsters but now pretend time is over.
Pretend time still exists for those who don't know yet that the thugs are closing in for the kill. Wouldn't want to wake their sleeping prey. However for those of us who are awake the gangster government thugs just steal our stuff or go for the kill. They know that we already know they are thieves and killers so they just rob us or kill us without any more pretending.
I sort off miss when they had to pretend to be their to protect and serve us. Things were a lot safer when we were all just pretending to get along. Now the British Pirates are going around completely wild and drunk with power. We are on the verge of open warfare.
For now just walk quietly past the enemy and bide your time. Keep pretending like they do that everything is going to be ok! We are still friends right? Smile politely and move along spritely past the guest stoppo lest you be stopped.
Now there is only force and the threat of force. There are no more contracts or agreements or basic Laws. There is no reason to pretend that there are rules of any kind. The fraud is unraveling and pretending to be at peace is almost over.
Soon whoever has the greatest ability to exert targeted force will prevail.
May you live long enough to be there on the day we put the last of these crooks to rest or drive their kind back into the sea.
David40, I fear you are right and we may be too late to turn this around peacefully.
History says it is already too late.. All we have different this time is the Internet, maybe it is enough to turn the tide. I hope. And of course Ron Paul for real inspiration and hope.
The Oracle
unless you have big dollars there is no rule of law or justice
those are the hard facts.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
thanks
I listened in on this mini-episode - and now I'm starting the entire "Introduction to George Gordon".
I'm learning the long hard way I guess
at least I'm still "young" and am now "on track" I hope
interesting stuff!
So I'm an undergraduate currently
So I'm and undergraduate currently and I hope to go to law school and practice law (hopefully as liberty-angled as possible). What can any of you give to me as advice? Is it pointless for a liberty-minded individual to work within the BAR and the general system? If I were to listen to George Gordon and also go to law school could I be a much better lawyer and work better for my clients? I know you guys have some valuable answers.
If we don't change our direction, we're likely to end up where we are headed.
Law School v. George Gordon's School of Law
Lawyers are beholden to the state. If you learn what George teaches you can act as anyone's counsel of choice and if they deprive that person of their counsel they can immediately bring a suit against the judge in federal court. You can teach law as George does. These phoney laws about "legal advice" "medical advice" etc? Are a violation of 1st amendment rights. But, know this, it comes down to status. You have contracts w/ the state or Fed you are a citizen (subject) and don't have rights only privileges. The States & Fed gov are corporations. There is no Republic or Democracy in this country anymore; it is an oligarchy. George's has the right answers and like he says, it isn't for everyone. You have to be tough! Becoming a sovereign under El isn't easy. But it has its benefits when a sovereign knows what he is doing. A NYC lawyer said, "judges are whores made pimps." They tried to disbar him but he broke it off in them. He isn't interested in being a judge. Law school is a waste of hard earned money. I'll share a couple of my winning cases in the future. FUN!
Here in the United States of
Here in the United States of America, I AM the government. The Sovereignty that you
claim to exercise BELONGS TO ME! That SOVEREIGNTY was delegated from the
Creator of the Universe, and collectively, through we the people, delegated down to our
created offices, one of which you just happen to temporarily occupy, at our good
pleasure. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that I am the Sovereign.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) states: "The words 'people of the United
States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both
describe the political body who. According to our republican institutions form the
sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their
representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people.' and every
citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty."
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, decided May 10, 1886 states: "Sovereignty itself is,
of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system,
while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself
remains with the people. By whom and for whom all government exists and acts".
Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) states: "Sovereignty is the right to
govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In
Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people;
there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single
instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same
relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their
Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but
official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than
as private citizens."
Colten v. Kentucky (1972) 407 U.S. 104, 122, 92 S. Ct. 1953 states; "The
constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns. the state and federal
officials only our agents."
Julliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, (1884), states, "There is no such thing as a power
of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country
sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they
have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: all else is withheld."
Perry v United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935), states "The Congress cannot revoke
the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared."
McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405, states "In the United States,
Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the
Constitution. "
Sounds Great! Too Bad The Sovrans Mostly Abdicated
Looks like it's just you and me now buddy! It may come to drawing swords and standing back to back to face the mindless zombie hordes.
Did you see the article on the dead woman who was in the bottom of an open public pool for four days before anyone noticed!
How much fluoride in the water does it take to make people not notice dead bodies?
So many zombies head over the cliff. How do we get separated from the mass of their bodies so we don't get drug over too?
Every day I lean more and more towards David's solution. Have you visited TheRightToSelfDetermination.com?
I highly recommend you evaluate that option.
The U.S. Government is a hulking rust bucket filling up fast with water (debt). If you don't want to drown in it's debt and die you gotta get out somehow soon.
Also go to Starving The Monkeys Press and get a copy of Starving The Monkeys.
Man does Tom lay it out bare.
We can always hope for a Ron Paul Revolution in 2012 but if that misses the mark this boat is going down all the way to the bottom.
The more I learn about Law, commerce, psychology, history, even genetics the more I lean towards just trying to survive the inevitable collapse of this civilization.
The first big collapse of an advanced human civilization may have been as long ago as 9,000 B.C.!
Why are we any different this time around? I don't mean you and I, I mean the zombies and the vampires who prey on them that are all going down with the ship and neither group seems to notice or care!
Who can save us from them now? How do we get off this sinking ship before it sucks us down?
The Oracle
I wouldn't recommend it.
Unless you can get a really good scholarship or have the money to pay for it, don't go into debt paying for three years of law school. The job market is pretty tough right now, and there is no sign of it ever improving. Here's one article describing how bad the job market is, and how one law student is asking for a tuition refund...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/unemployed-boston-college-law...
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
Not completely pointless, but
Not completely pointless, but the Bar is a club with hidden unspoken boundaries. Cross the line and you are out. At the height of my ProSe exploits I was offered a chance to go to law school by a prestigious law firm in Pittsburgh under the condition I go to work for them afterwards. But after some consideration the offer was withdrawn and reason given for that was they determined I was "too honest" to make a useful attorney. As a licensed attorney you will be required to compromise on your morals and principles.
------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
OK, I'm listening
I am intrigued that people are claiming that they have followed the advice of "rule of law radio" type salesmen out there and have succeeded in court.
Please, provide more examples of victories.
What was the charge against you? How did you win?
What was your cause of action against another? How did you win?
I am 2 for 2
But I played by their rules. I don't understand all the mumbo jumbo stuff these guys are talking about. More reading . . . more reading . . . more research.
btw I stumbled across a judge today getting footage for my next video. Don't think I will include him in the vid.
Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com
I went and filed my civil petition today in the matter I ref'd
The judge has already made up her mind that I'll not win my case without an attorney. She went on a BIG rant, obviously disgusted, appalled and offended that I do not have an attorney. She told me she was going to get one appointed for me as my case filed on Pauper's Affidavit. Get that? She was going to get an attorney appointed for me where I am the Plaintiff in a civil matter! I told her that indigence is not the issue - that, pursuant to Corpus Juris Secundum, hiring an attorney making me non compos mentis and therefore a ward of the court is the issue, and I do not consent to it. She said, "Look, bottom line is, you're a highly intelligent individual, but you simply do not have the legal training to pull this off! You need to get yourself an attorney if you hope to have any success." I asked, "Is that a judicial determination or legal conclusion?" She gave me the most God-awful go-to-hell look, but said nothing. I told her that I am not a member of the law society and am therefore not bound to their rules and etiquette that they have set forth and agreed to as binding upon themselves. She said, "No - not etiquette! Just rules!" I said, "So then you do not dispute my assertion that I am not a member of the law society and am therefore not bound to their rules?" She would not answer. I asked, "Ma'am, am I obliged to have an attorney?" She went silent and pretended to continue reading my paperwork. I interjected, "Okay, let me rephrase. Ma'am, does the Constitution that you're sworn to uphold and defend say that I can come into this court with or without legal counsel?" She literally turned red and said, "OH, GOD! ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE CONSTITUTIONALISTS?!" I said, "Do I have Constitutional rights?" She said, "Uh... well, yeah." I said, "I don't waive those." She slammed my TRO down and aggressively signed it as if she were intentionally trying to rip it with her pen, then shoved it over the bench at me and onto the floor before I could catch it." Then she said, "There, granted! But I'm telling you right now, I'm not going to continue to enforce it unless you work out some sort of payment arrangement with [alleged mortgage company], and you had better get yourself an attorney before the TRO hearing next Monday!" I said, "I accept that I had better work out a payment arrangement with [alleged mortgage company] upon [alleged mortgage company's] proof of claim and upon your neutral impartiality in this matter, wherein you will not tip the balance of this matter in any way in [alleged mortgage company's] favor. I further accept that I had better get my self an attorney before the TRO hearing next Monday upon the condition that I review the Texas laws and the Constitutions of Texas and of the organic united states of the Union and find that I have a lawful obligation to get an attorney." She sneered and said, "You're free to go, and I suggest you do before I change my mind on that TRO!"
There was a lot more discussion than that, but the above is the basic gist of it. I was in there for about 20 minutes and for ~18 of those minutes the judge was totally preoccupied and pissed off that I dared to come into the court without legal counsel. :-)
I'm going to serve her with the Acceptance of Oath I previously referenced and a Notice of Status reasserting my rights and that I am not an attorney, nor am I bound to have one. The petition she accepted cites court cases that bind her to look at substance rather than form, but she's already bucking that.
I'm not too worried about the TRO hearing, nor about the judge's whining about my not having an attorney. I've been through this many times in criminal matters (traffic tickets, fines and et cetera where there's no injured party), but, as this is my first civil matter, any pointers for the TRO hearing would be appreciated to spark anything I might overlook. As such would be somewhat off the topic of this thread, please feel free to contact me offline.
please keep us posted
.
Update
Despite my conferences with the bank's attorneys, they never filed an answer, never showed up for any hearings and never filed a shred of anything into the case file. Once the deadline for answer passed with nothing except phone calls and one letter to me (which I shot down in flames) from the attorney, I called the lead attorney to inquire as to whether or not he was aware that his firm was now in default and that I am now entitled to a default judgment, his response was, "You know, somehow I think you already knew we'd not be able to respond to your pleading." Translation: there's no way we're going into court and being made to answer your questions about our fraud on and for the record!
My default hearing is next week. In my pleading that the defendant defaulted on, I've asked for, among other things:
1) Release of the alleged debt with no option for it to be re-pursued;
2) Sign the note, deed, title and all related documents over to me, marked as "SATISFIED IN FULL";
3) Remove all negative credit reporting and mark the related files as "SATISFIED IN FULL"; and
4) Return to me all payments, fiat, credit or otherwise, that I ever gave at the same interest rate of the alleged mortgage payments.
As the defendant has defaulted I should get all relief requested in my pleading. The judge handling the default hearing is one whose recusal I filed for, so I'm expecting a couple of dirty tricks, but I've faced that the entire time, so we'll see. :-)
Good Work!!! Let us know on
Good Work!!!
Let us know on the 21st what occurred!!
With the mainstream news of Mortgages and Foreclosures being "illegal", you are in a good time to be doing what you're doing.
Good Luck!!!
You should post the judges info here for the world to see what type of person she is;)
Update
My default hearing was this past Thursday (10/21) as scheduled. It went... a little unexpectedly. Literally about 3 minutes before my hearing, as I was sitting in the court room watching another proceeding, the court coordinator came over, sat behind me and asked if I was there for the default hearing. I confirmed and she said, "Well... they filed an answer." I said, "Not as of the deadline to do so, they didn't." The coordinator said, "They filed it yesterday [which was 16 days late as it was due Oct. 4] and if you'll come around to my office with me, I'll give you a copy." So I went around the corner to her office and she gave me a copy of the defendant's late and very general answer. The answer was a very short general denial, stating no specific reason for denial, it was from an attorney firm I've never heard of (not the attorney firm previously claiming to be representing the bank), and it was filed at 4:50PM on the day before the default hearing. Somewhere along the way, after the deadline for the defendant's answer, the defendant apparently switched attorney firms, and I got no notice of it from the defendant, the old attorney firm or the new attorney firm. I didn't figure the filing of an answer would be an issue being that it was so late, regardless of who filed it. However, the judge maintained that because an answer was filed, the defendant was no longer in default and so the judge could not hear my motion for default judgment.
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are pretty clear on filing of answers and default judgments:
RULE 92. GENERAL DENIAL
A general denial of matters pleaded by the adverse party which are not required to be denied under oath, shall be sufficient to put the same in issue. When the defendant has pleaded a general denial, and the plaintiff shall afterward amend his pleading, such original denial shall be presumed to extend to all matters subsequently set up by the plaintiff.
When a counterclaim or cross-claim is served upon a party who has made an appearance in the action, the party so served, in the absence of a responsive pleading, shall be deemed to have pleaded a general denial of the counterclaim or cross-claim, but the party shall not be deemed to have waived any special appearance or motion to transfer venue. In all other respects the rules prescribed for pleadings of defensive matter are applicable to answers to counterclaims and cross-claims.
According to the default rule, there are no provisions for late filing of answer:
RULE 239. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
Upon such call of the docket, or at any time after a defendant is required to answer, the plaintiff may in term time take judgment by default against such defendant if he has not previously filed an answer, and provided that the citation with the officer's return thereon shall have been on file with the clerk for the length of time required by Rule 107.
...and Rule 107 says:
RULE 107. RETURN OF SERVICE
The return of the officer or authorized person executing the citation shall be endorsed on or attached to the same; it shall state when the citation was served and the manner of service and be signed by the officer officially or by the authorized person. The return of citation by an authorized person shall be verified.
When the citation was served by registered or certified mail as authorized by Rule 106, the return by the officer or authorized person must also contain the return receipt with the addressee's signature. When the officer or authorized person has not served the citation, the return shall show the diligence used by the officer or authorized person to execute the same and the cause of failure to execute it, and where the defendant is to be found, if he can ascertain. Where citation is executed by an alternative method as authorized by Rule 106, proof of service shall be made in the manner ordered by the court.
No default judgment shall be granted in any cause until the citation, or process under Rules 108 or 108a, with proof of service as provided by this rule or by Rules 108 or 108a, or as ordered by the court in the event citation is executed under Rule 106, shall have been on file with the clerk of the court ten days, exclusive of the day of filing and the day of judgment.
The return on citation has been on the clerk's file for well more than sufficient time, and I don't see any special provisions for late filing of an answer applicable to this case.
I'm not sure what's up with this bait & switch of attorney firms, and I wasn't sure of the grounds allowing late filing to constitute the defendant now not being in default. I couldn't argue it with the judge because I was somewhat caught off guard. All I could do was state on and for the record that (a) there appears to have been a bait and switch of attorney firms as the one I've been dealing with, who said it was representing the defendant, is not the attorney firm who filed the answer, (b) that I had not been served with the answer and only became aware of it a few minutes before the hearing, (c) it is my understanding that the defendant had until 10AM on the Monday next following 20 days after service of citation, which made the deadline for answer to be October 4, (d) whoever this surprise attorney firm is filed the answer sufficiently late and (e) I'm not in agreement that the defendant is not in default as I'm not aware of any rules of special provision for late filing of answer.
This is the judge, but I have to say she was very professional and courteous in the default hearing, which I wasn't expecting, and which is unlike previous dealings with her, but I'm not sure if she made up the rules as we go by contending that the late answer now means the defendant is no longer in default.
I need to file a motion to strike/quash/dismiss the answer, but my concern is that there is some obscure rule outside of the Rules of Civil Procedure (case law, perhaps) allowing late answer and last-minute switch of attorneys. So far I've not found any provisions for late filing. I have to give grounds for the motion and I can't really yet say for sure that there are no provisions for late answer. My dilemma now is that I need to file a motion soon and don't have time to research through mountains of case law on late answers (been at it for 4 days now and haven't turned up anything).
I think
Even If you got the default they would just file a motion to open Judgement. Its never that easy.
Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com
Likely
But the rules on default judgment/defendant's answer are pretty clear, yet the judges make up the rules arbitrarily as we go along. I'm going to put the new attorney through the ringer, though. :-)
wow... thanks for the update!!
good information in this thread.
Knowledge is power, action is love.
Will do
I think I'm going to have the judge recused tomorrow. I'm hesitant to do that for certain reasons. We'll see how it goes.
Call for her recusal.
Call for her outright recusal under the law of reconsideration.
"Any pre-determined even insufficiently untoward appearance of impropriety, means I am obliged to seek new standing in this matter forthwith. The establishment of fact with "XYZ" mortgage company is strictly between myself, and the heads of the company. I am not obliged to allow even a hint of impropriety to distill my case, nor am I obliged to allow a Judge to act as mediator whom has reported connections to the parties in question. No judge, under any circumstances shall be involved in an impromptu form on my behalf if they so retain official ties to the mortgage industry or any of its designates, beneficiaries or alumni."
"You are hereby served notice! Hereafter, I am seeking lawful adjudication authority between myself and the alleged injured party to settle this matter person to person. I do recognize the injured party, retains corporate person status."
http://teamlaw.net
Get a power of attorney letter and bring a friend too.
Oh, yeah...
She's definitely getting recused!!!
This is her: http://sudderthcoverup.com/
Recuse her. She's toast.
Show the TRO and letter of lawful reconsideration to the new Judge, ask the "injuried Party" to prove injured Party status and this case is as good as done for.
Slam dunk, the Mortgage giants lose again. All people need to take these leeches to court and do the same.
Yep.
I'm actually pretty pumped now... especially after finding this dirt and having an hour+ conversation with George Gordon's wife today, who, in and of herself, is a wealth of information! George only accepts payment in gold, but as soon as I can afford it I'm going to get his package for future issues.
Actually, I am the injured party... my petition is "Plaintiff's Original Petition for Verification of Debt Else Release of Claim" - but I hear ya.
Nevertheless, this judge is done in this case!
That's right...
I just wrote that in there, because they always try to prove they are the injured party.
As a corporate person usually will always do, having no type of empathy whatsoever.
Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
"Judge, even though we've made about 30x more money off of this guy than we were supposed to have made, and even though we did it by fraud, and even though we've incurred no loss and we took no risk, he didn't pay us, so we didn't get to make it 31x like we planned, so we're injured!!! And do you know what this guy had the NERVE to say to us?! He said PROVE YOUR CLAIM! That hurts our feelings!!!" :(
Hehe - you're exactly right.