Beijing hotels

Beijing hotels

Drunk Driving Attorney

Drunk Driving Attorney

Online Art Gallery

Online Art Gallery

International Truck

International Truck

Very nice blog. It is very helpful. http://www.bignews.com

Very nice blog. It is very helpful. http://www.bignews.com

Sounds like that whole “sovereign citizen” movement–they believe that coming off the gold standard was illegal, that there was no authority to set up the Federal Reserve Bank, and that if your name is written all in capital letters it represents not you but some record of you the government holds. They call it the “straw man.” It’s a very strange group, often anti-gov’t militia types believe this stuff. Some won’t get driver’s licenses or in any way hold a “contract” with the state, including their address. They will only receive mail c/o their address. They don’t think they have to pay taxes. I think that one lady at We the People is being charged for that. There are many websites that will describe this stuff…look up “Straw Man” theory. It’s bizarre. And they all think there is a conspiracy not to tell anyone about this in law school. I know someone who has gotten out of countless traffic tickets using the theory that by not speaking to the judge and claiming no jurisdiction over him as a sovereign citizen,that he can not be proceeded against. It’s worked for him, but I think the judges just got sick of him, personally.

Sounds like that whole “sovereign citizen” movement–they believe that coming off the gold standard was illegal, that there was no authority to set up the Federal Reserve Bank, and that if your name is written all in capital letters it represents not you but some record of you the government holds. They call it the “straw man.” It’s a very strange group, often anti-gov’t militia types believe this stuff. Some won’t get driver’s licenses or in any way hold a “contract” with the state, including their address. They will only receive mail c/o their address. They don’t think they have to pay taxes. I think that one lady at We the People is being charged for that. There are many websites that will describe this stuff…look up “Straw Man” theory. It’s bizarre. And they all think there is a conspiracy not to tell anyone about this in law school. I know someone who has gotten out of countless traffic tickets using the theory that by not speaking to the judge and claiming no jurisdiction over him as a sovereign citizen,that he can not be proceeded against. It’s worked for him, but I think the judges just got sick of him, personally.

This is a comment on some of the suggested culprits mentioned in: “Tracking Down the Source of Wacky Debtor Legalisms”

I am amazed that two of the groups mentioned are people I know personally. Specifically, “Charles Lindsay; Cheney Jr” and the principle author/editor of “AntiShyster” (now “Suspicions”) magazine are both people I have personally corresponded with in the past. Both of these men, and myself, have been railroaded into prison for significant chunks of time. We are all labeled as constitutionalists.

Substantially, all the label “constitutionalist” means is that we are all fanatics who want the government to act as a system of law rather then as a system of privileged people. When the original 13th amendment, (aka “Titles of Nobility Amendment”), was “lost” around 1865 when the wholly fraudulent amendment currently called the 14th amendment was installed, the esquires marched in to relieve Americans of the burden of comprehending their legal system, and begin the long process of stripping us of all substantial rights. As an esquire, you probably don’t subscribe to this historical view. To constitutionalists, this historical perspective is more then ample justification for practicing law. We regard esquires as persons who have lost their rights as a U.S. citizen (as required by the original 13th amendment). As far as we are concerned, esquires are actively engaged in treason.

That Adask, Cheney and myself have all spent significant amounts of time in jail for no cause, underscores the violence necessary to support our quasi-monarchist system. Adask and Cheney spent about a year in jail. I have spent about 103 days getting to a trial and it took a jury of 12 people, eight minutes to unanimously find me innocent. The point is that we are a persecuted minority who have paid dearly to try to get our system of government back on track. (Mostly, to no avail… the system is well beyond sick. It looks like riga mortis has set in…)

It seems to me, that the ”AntiShyster Magazine, and its policy statement on Legal Advice” is an excellent disclaimer. Why do you have a problem with non-esquires studying the law? Esquires seem to want everyone to obey the law except their own privileged group. It’s bad enough that they have made a mockery of the U.S. constitution by voiding the “Titles of Nobility Amendment”. In California, they are even making a mockery of the Bar Associations rules and the state laws which are necessary to maintain discipline within the ranks of the esquires.

If you want to go after people who are really doing substantial damage through the “Unauthorized Practice of Law”, you should go after the various temporarily appointed “judges” in California who are inactive members of the bar. Briefly, some corrupt counties have bogus judges who are reserved to dispense particularly egregious injustice on dissidents or other undesirables. They cannot legally practice law, but since they are the de-facto law in some counties, the fact that they are bogus makes no difference.

In California, an inactive member of the bar cannot practice law or hold office. This law is necessary as the only means for the bar association to discipline itself and cope with dishonest or corrupt esquires. Many judges and commissioners in Butte County are known to be in violation of this law. I personally, had one such “judge” sign an order that eliminated my lawful custody of my daughter. This same “judge”, (Steven Richard McNelis, of Durham, California, and bar number 64393 is an Inactive Bar Member), was also assigned to hear my “Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court” because he is not a legitimate “judge”. Unsurprisingly, he exonerated himself, signed an order eliminating custody of my daughter, and commented that I could expect worse in the future if my paperwork continued it’s “current pattern”.

There is probably little point complaining to you people. You are the de-facto tyrants running this god-forsaken empire. It is incredibly ironic to see a www site where esquire ethics is seriously regarded. I thought Harvard had lots of smart people with an educated historical perspective.

This is a comment on some of the suggested culprits mentioned in: “Tracking Down the Source of Wacky Debtor Legalisms”

I am amazed that two of the groups mentioned are people I know personally. Specifically, “Charles Lindsay; Cheney Jr” and the principle author/editor of “AntiShyster” (now “Suspicions”) magazine are both people I have personally corresponded with in the past. Both of these men, and myself, have been railroaded into prison for significant chunks of time. We are all labeled as constitutionalists.

Substantially, all the label “constitutionalist” means is that we are all fanatics who want the government to act as a system of law rather then as a system of privileged people. When the original 13th amendment, (aka “Titles of Nobility Amendment”), was “lost” around 1865 when the wholly fraudulent amendment currently called the 14th amendment was installed, the esquires marched in to relieve Americans of the burden of comprehending their legal system, and begin the long process of stripping us of all substantial rights. As an esquire, you probably don’t subscribe to this historical view. To constitutionalists, this historical perspective is more then ample justification for practicing law. We regard esquires as persons who have lost their rights as a U.S. citizen (as required by the original 13th amendment). As far as we are concerned, esquires are actively engaged in treason.

That Adask, Cheney and myself have all spent significant amounts of time in jail for no cause, underscores the violence necessary to support our quasi-monarchist system. Adask and Cheney spent about a year in jail. I have spent about 103 days getting to a trial and it took a jury of 12 people, eight minutes to unanimously find me innocent. The point is that we are a persecuted minority who have paid dearly to try to get our system of government back on track. (Mostly, to no avail… the system is well beyond sick. It looks like riga mortis has set in…)

It seems to me, that the ”AntiShyster Magazine, and its policy statement on Legal Advice” is an excellent disclaimer. Why do you have a problem with non-esquires studying the law? Esquires seem to want everyone to obey the law except their own privileged group. It’s bad enough that they have made a mockery of the U.S. constitution by voiding the “Titles of Nobility Amendment”. In California, they are even making a mockery of the Bar Associations rules and the state laws which are necessary to maintain discipline within the ranks of the esquires.

If you want to go after people who are really doing substantial damage through the “Unauthorized Practice of Law”, you should go after the various temporarily appointed “judges” in California who are inactive members of the bar. Briefly, some corrupt counties have bogus judges who are reserved to dispense particularly egregious injustice on dissidents or other undesirables. They cannot legally practice law, but since they are the de-facto law in some counties, the fact that they are bogus makes no difference.

In California, an inactive member of the bar cannot practice law or hold office. This law is necessary as the only means for the bar association to discipline itself and cope with dishonest or corrupt esquires. Many judges and commissioners in Butte County are known to be in violation of this law. I personally, had one such “judge” sign an order that eliminated my lawful custody of my daughter. This same “judge”, (Steven Richard McNelis, of Durham, California, and bar number 64393 is an Inactive Bar Member), was also assigned to hear my “Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court” because he is not a legitimate “judge”. Unsurprisingly, he exonerated himself, signed an order eliminating custody of my daughter, and commented that I could expect worse in the future if my paperwork continued it’s “current pattern”.

There is probably little point complaining to you people. You are the de-facto tyrants running this god-forsaken empire. It is incredibly ironic to see a www site where esquire ethics is seriously regarded. I thought Harvard had lots of smart people with an educated historical perspective.

We all have our biases.  There was certainly no offense taken — just a good opportunity for me to point out someone else’s.
 
While I guess you have to call criminal defense lawyers ”lawyers for alleged criminals” or “lawyers for criminal defendants,” I’m pretty sure “lawyers for alleged creditors” would not be an appellation preferred by creditors’ lawyers.   Thanks for reading and commenting.  Come on back.

We all have our biases.  There was certainly no offense taken — just a good opportunity for me to point out someone else’s.
 
While I guess you have to call criminal defense lawyers ”lawyers for alleged criminals” or “lawyers for criminal defendants,” I’m pretty sure “lawyers for alleged creditors” would not be an appellation preferred by creditors’ lawyers.   Thanks for reading and commenting.  Come on back.