Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Discuss various strategies and methods

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby MichaelLynch:Freeman » Wed May 17, 2017 5:40 am

country_hick wrote:The judge denied my moving the court to force the plaintiff to answer interrogatories. That is a small loss.

The judge removed all but one avenue for my notice of inquiry. As a result I sent 315 questions in a notice to the judge. It took 21-23 pages to print out.

Because the judge denied my right to discovery he now is stuck with answering it himself. Play the game, suffer from the rules..


My, my, the judge a/k/a the court denied!!! How are those inquiries working out for you? Don't be surprised when you lose the case.

And, why would a territorial court, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, agree to give you sovereign immunity when you're seen as nothing more than a citizen and resident of the State of Maine and United States? Playing in the sandbox can be detrimental to your freedom.

PS: Why would one of the people, a free inhabitant, ever need sovereign immunity from a government agent that has absolutely nothing to do with them? Oh, but you're not a free inhabitant are you? If you were a free inhabitant, your actions would show it.
MichaelLynch:Freeman
Freeman
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 34 time
Have thanks: 23 time

 

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby country_hick » Wed May 17, 2017 11:13 am

Whereas my father was a legislator and I and his son that makes me one of the people.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Wed May 17, 2017 11:26 am

country_hick wrote:Whereas my father was a legislator and I and his son that makes me one of the people.

Did your father unit swear an oath of office under Art. VI §3 to support "this Constitution"?
3 The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of
the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.
Did your father unit adopt this constitution?
I bet he did not, and if not , then you are not one of the people.
If you can supply documentation that evidences that your father unit swore to support "this" Constitution, Then I will be happy to eat a huge plate of crow.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 132 time
Have thanks: 58 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby MichaelLynch:Freeman » Wed May 17, 2017 12:37 pm

country_hick wrote:Whereas my father was a legislator and I and {sic] his son that makes me one of the people.


If your father was a legislator of State of Maine or any State of XYZ or United States, just how does that make you one of the people, a free inhabitant of the Confederacy, the United States of America? Again, your actions (as a citizen/resident) do not match your words. You keep consenting to the jurisdiction of the "State", do you not?

From the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
MichaelLynch:Freeman
Freeman
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 34 time
Have thanks: 23 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby country_hick » Thu May 18, 2017 8:58 pm

No, I claimed to be one of the people of the land mass known as Maine.

A free inhabitant of the Confederacy, the United States of America can still live as one of the people of the land mass known as Maine or wherever they wish to live.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby MichaelLynch:Freeman » Fri May 19, 2017 7:06 am

Once again I have taken the text quoted below out of a notice and demand that has been put together to be given to an alleged law enforcement officer, as well as a copy to the "court", re his/her territorial jurisdiction to stop me, a free inhabitant, as I travel upon the soil of the Sovereign, Free and Independent State, Florida. I am not including all that is in said notice and demand, because frankly, not many here comprehend what a challenge to territorial jurisdiction is.

BTW, I am not "one of the people of the land mass" known as Florida. I am simply one of the people, a free inhabitant, living on the soil of Florida.

For final illustration purposes only, the following two State of Florida Statutes reiterate this territorial jurisdiction restriction by defining the term “State” as Federal territory:

Chapter 322 – Driver Licenses
§ 322.01 Definitions.—As used in this chapter:
…. (38) “State” means a state or possession of the United States, and, for the purposes of this chapter, includes the District of Columbia.
____________________________________________________________________
§ 322.44 Driver License Compact.
ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS.—As used in this compact:
(1) “State” means a state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

If there is another definition in the written law, either the Constitution of State of Florida or Statutes, that means something other than the above that you, alleged Trooper A. Beaver, are relying upon to define the territory over which the State of Florida Statutes apply, please provide such definition(s).

This Notice and Demand is limited to examining whether or not you, alleged Trooper A. Beaver, can present evidence that you have territorial jurisdiction over me at the geographical location where you, alleged Trooper A. Beaver, stopped me. My relationship to you, alleged Trooper A. Beaver, is an issue of whether or not the geographical location in question is on Federal territory (“property”), i.e., “in this state” or “in the state”.

I hereby challenge your, alleged Trooper A. Beaver’s, alleged territorial jurisdiction to stop me at the geographical location in question as I travel in my own private conveyance.

When the issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, it must be proven before a court may proceed. For final illustration purposes only, United States territorial courts concur, to wit:

“No Court or officer can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it or by falsely alleging the existence of facts on which jurisdiction depends. . .No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding that he has it. In all such cases, every officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his peril.”
— Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 Cal. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb. (N.Y.) 607, 608.

“When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”
— Melo v. U.S., 505 F2d 1026.


The complete notice and demand, when presented to an alleged LEO, will most definitely cause that alleged LEO to NOT show up at any alleged hearing or trial and the matter will be dismissed. The "court" a/k/a/ the "judge", will never rule it is a result of a lack of jurisdiction, but that is in fact what it is.

I am not interested in challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the "court" but the alleged claimant. If the alleged claimant does not have territorial jurisdiction, it CANNOT give it to the "court" or invoke the "court's" power. The "court" will never be able to adjudicate or bind the alleged defendant to anything, period!
MichaelLynch:Freeman
Freeman
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 34 time
Have thanks: 23 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby palani » Fri May 19, 2017 7:48 am

MichaelLynch:Freeman wrote: I am not ... I am ...

"I am" is a process called 'ification' ... the process of becoming. Reification is the process of becoming AGAIN. Reification is nothing more than 1) agency and 2) re-definition. And agency is one method by which a 'person' becomes. The agent represents what went before or what currently is. What went before is called 'the past'. History is built upon layers and layers of the past call 'planes'. Planes are useful as a lens through which to filter facts to construct an expectation of the present and extrapolate to the future.

Perhaps living in the past is less preferable to considering what you expect to be in the future? The past is gone. It might be analyzed but the dead have never had the power or authority to bind the living.

For me I am living and choose to honor the dead but not in ways that injure myself.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby MichaelLynch:Freeman » Fri May 19, 2017 8:07 am

You like spewing a lot of irrelevant and meaningless gibberish don't you palani? :lol:
MichaelLynch:Freeman
Freeman
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 34 time
Have thanks: 23 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby palani » Fri May 19, 2017 8:47 am

MichaelLynch:Freeman wrote:You like spewing ...

Yet you are the one attempting to re-define herself.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: Notice of inquiry...Use it.

Postby MichaelLynch:Freeman » Thu May 25, 2017 4:08 pm

MichaelLynch:Freeman wrote:
It was agreed upon by the silence the alleged claimant they did NOT have territorial jurisdiction so the matters went bye bye. You will just have to take my word for it. Of course, you do not have to believe me, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Jethro wrote:
So you believe they went away because of your territorial jurisdiction challenge. However, the other side did not affirm your belief. Wonderful. You're entitled to your belief. And country_hick is entitled to his inquiry.

My reply:
Nope, there is no belief involved. I know that is why the alleged claimants went away. My challenge to the alleged claimants had no issues other than territorial jurisdiction, NONE!! If the alleged claimant has territorial jurisdiction then why did it not pursue the matter any further? Why drop the matter?

MichaelLynch:Freeman wrote:
PS: I have already used two recent challenges to territorial jurisdiction to cause the "ones allegedly coming after me" to drop the matter before any territorial court could get involved. Of course my challenge (inquiry) was relatively short and to the point. Truth is simple, not complicated, but I do not believe the truth is what you are interested in.

Jethro wrote:
Great. Post details of those cases, please. (p.s. But as you may recall, the last territorial jurisdiction challenge "victory" you posted wasn't that at all).

My reply:
So you say. Is that your opinion Jethro (like you said to me, it's like "bungholes", everybody has one), or do you have some proof that "wasn't it at all? You can read minds? Or maybe you have a crystal ball? How do you know the "court" did not dismiss just to save face? You honestly believe a territorial court is going admit it does not have TJ when it can dismiss for other reasons? It is going to admit no TJ over the territory in question for all the world to hear, eh Jethro? You have heard the term, "not everything is as it appears"? It appeared the "court" dismissed for another reason, but did it? Unless you can prove otherwise, well, can you? Thought not!!!
MichaelLynch:Freeman
Freeman
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 34 time
Have thanks: 23 time

PreviousNext

Return to Police & Court Strategies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred