|
A reader's comment: I bought and checked out the court rules for the Dist. of Columbia Ct. Rules, Edition 2002 because your website says that it might be the real supreme court, so unless the rules changed recently you cannot go there unless the action is within their physical jurisdiction (you cannot take a habeas action from Alabama there, it would go back to Ala., USDC, USCA then to Supr. Ct of US). Your website may have some great stuff on it, but it will become discredited quickly if some of it is worst then worthless, it gives a serious litigate false hope, makes him go on wild goose chases and use up his valuable time and possibly defeat him. In the last twenty years there have been other people try to teach self defense law and not be successful at it because they just put out wrong worthless information or the courts are so corrupt that nobody gets any justice. What is needed is for people to pass around litigation that is working, figure out why other stuff is not working, put friends of the court briefs into courts when the opportunites arises. (mickey mouse got 200 groups to put friends of court briefs into the supreme court, patriots should be able to do better than that.) , etc. I just had two cases (1 on SSN and 1 on Habeas) in S. CT. of US and if they would have made a decision on them we would be free people now. They through the cases out of court because they want us to be slaves to the elite. Jack Snavely sminvestvctrust@comcast.net wrote: |
|
A reply to the reader's comment: > I bought and checked out the court rules for the Dist. of Columbia Ct. Rules, > Edition 2002 because your website says There is note at the top of the page stating that the page is a mirror of another site. Because you missed it, I have enlarged and repositioned it. > that it might be the real supreme court, so unless > the rules changed recently you cannot go there unless > the action is within their physical jurisdiction (you cannot take a habeas > action from Alabama there, it would go back to Ala., USDC, USCA then to > Supr. Ct of US). The success of a court proceeding often depends upon the form of the words rather than the substance of the action. Some people say that the states are de facto non-existent and that the feds have taken over everything. If that is true, then Alabama et al. would be districts within the District of Columbia. If the pleadings reflected that, then perhaps there would be success by taking the case there. From what I have heard, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia was the one to which the Constitution referred. There was one year in which no decisions were made. The Congress legislatively created the current alleged Supreme Court, which then began to handle the business that formerly went to the D.C. Supreme Court. Later, the D.C. Supreme Court changed its name so that it came to be referenced as an appellate court of the District of Columbia. So, which court is the real Supreme Court? I don't know. It must be researched to know. The Constitution authorizes Congress to make inferior courts. What's to prevent the Congress from calling the inferior court a "Supreme Court"? And what's to prevent the D.C. Supreme Court from nicknaming itself an appellate court? And, if no one objects, the false image becomes a reality. When Justice Souter was confirmed by the Senate, two oaths of office were administered. One was very public. The other was administered "privately" in his home. Why? Is it because he is sitting on two supreme courts? More grist for research. > Your website may have some great stuff on it, but it > will become discredited quickly if some of it is worst then [sic] worthless, > it gives a serious litigate false hope, makes him go on wild goose chases > and use up his valuable time and possibly defeat him. In the last twenty > years there have been other people try to teach self defense law and not > be successful at it because they just put out wrong worthless information > or the courts are so corrupt that nobody gets any justice. What is needed > is for people to pass around litigation that is working, figure out why > other stuff is not working, put friends of the court briefs into courts > when the opportunites arises. (mickey mouse got 200 groups to put friends > of court briefs into the supreme court, patriots should be able to do > better than that.) , etc. You make good points. But, please note, that article was not part of the solid information. It was placed in the "Miscellaneous" section of the lawnotes page. So that others will not be misled as you were, the emphasis has been changed. > I just had two cases (1 on SSN and 1 on Habeas) > in S. CT. of US and if they would have made a decision on them we would be > free people now. They through [sic] the cases out of court because they want us > to be slaves to the elite. To some extent you are right. But, I don't buy into the idea that everyone in government is an evil enslaving crook. My experience has been that if I get the paperwork correct, I win my point. No one in government is going to risk his job to help you if your paperwork is screwed up. On the other hand, good paperwork can provide good tools with which the honest government people can work behind the scenes to help your cause and override your opposition. Remember, a legal system is more than the black letter of the law. There is also an informal system of law operating in parallel with no fixed rules. Make certain your paperwork is as perfect as you can make it. Otherwise, sloppy, incorrect paperwork will guarantee bad results. By the way, when you had your H.C. in there, did you wait around for the justices to issue a decision, or did you take command and issue the decision yourself? My guess is that you waited for them. Take at look at these articles at http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/sovreign.htm http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/hc.htm http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/court.htm http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm Those articles may give you some insight as to why you did not get the decision you wanted. Hint: it all has to do with who is exercising the discretion in whose court. |