View Full Version : Personal Things Cannot Be Done By Another
palani
23rd March 2013, 04:42 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=VygzAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+or+a+discourse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_jZOUYTwONHa2wXYo4HoAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
Suit of court cannot be done by another.
http://i47.tinypic.com/357pugk.jpg
chad
23rd March 2013, 04:43 PM
good thing i don't live under a king then.
palani
23rd March 2013, 04:44 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/2gsog0l.jpg
An example:
A villain may hold a gold coin but that does not make him a free man. A free man can hold a copper coin but that does not make him a villain.
palani
23rd March 2013, 04:54 PM
good thing i don't live under a king then.
Common law requires a sovereign.
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:08 PM
Once you establish your status as a villain you will have a hard time being anything else by these rules.
http://i48.tinypic.com/1zgud0n.jpg
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:19 PM
Necessity is still a valid defense
http://i46.tinypic.com/kefeb6.jpg
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:26 PM
Conformity and necessity are related
http://i45.tinypic.com/21ovxhd.jpg
Seems odd that a land owner must demand rent when there is none to pay it.
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:31 PM
Interesting ... would it not seem that all courts these days have no colour to hold plea?
http://i46.tinypic.com/ztd853.jpg
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:31 PM
Interesting ... would it not seem that all courts these days have no colour to hold plea?
http://i46.tinypic.com/ztd853.jpg
The outcome? Void judgment.
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:53 PM
Amazing!!! Process is not needed UNLESS you hire an attorney. Who woulda thunk it?
http://i47.tinypic.com/1zb9jfb.jpg
Now if you don't plan on hiring an attorney why would you
1) accept process
2) initiate process
palani
23rd March 2013, 05:59 PM
Be aware that things that do not appear do not exist. Here we have a case where appearance can be hazardous (without process) if you owe the king.
http://i47.tinypic.com/ogbc77.jpg
mick silver
23rd March 2013, 06:48 PM
i didnt do it
7th trump
23rd March 2013, 08:33 PM
good thing i don't live under a king then.Good call Chad....glad I'm not the only one who's calling Palani out for applying "A Kings law" which doesn't apply to "WE THE PEOPLE".
Anybody have Palani's phone number? Somebody needs to call him to lay off the alcohol so as to post something sober.
Glass
23rd March 2013, 09:31 PM
He is showing that the practices and customs of courts that EXIST TODAY in the US of A, have their foundation from historical practices and customs. All of these things apply in court today. You are just not aware of who is king in your land. The US of A is still part of the commonwealth and has probably been that way for most of it's history. It's a still a colony.
Back to the point. These things still apply. They are useful tips to remember when you get a piece of paper from the government.
The OP said, Suit of court cannot be done by another. So any government suit, is not a suit it if is not done by the injured party. They cannot be an injured party at law. It's very simple to grasp. When you do, you would realise that their suit or claim does not constitute anything legal. It's purely an offer to contract or make up and agree some law between the parties. It usually goes like this. You didn't do something in regulation xyz. You are required to pay this fee $123. You go oh.....ok. But really they are making an offer to you with part of the documentation allready completed, that being the conditions of the up coming agreement. The conditions are You did it.
It pays to analyse the documents they send you because they are not always what they appear to be.
palani
24th March 2013, 07:05 AM
http://i47.tinypic.com/ogbc77.jpg
That 'without process' would be due process. Due process occurs before you hit the courtroom. It consists of NOTICE and OPPORTUNITY TO INQUIRE.
Show up in court and DUE PROCESS goes out the window. You are there to be judged only.
palani
24th March 2013, 07:11 AM
glad I'm not the only one who's calling Palani out for applying "A Kings law" which doesn't apply to "WE THE PEOPLE".
Oh it still applies. It is just that you fail to see that WE THE PEOPLE are to be considered the source of law (the King) in common law. You also fail to see that YOU ARE NOT 'WE THE PEOPLE'. In the context of the organic constitution that would be the 13 original states that agreed to the Articles of Confederation. Later on with the 14th amendment (a constitution in its own right) the insurgent government so formed under this amendment dissolved the organic constitution and 'WE THE PEOPLE' under this government are those with complete voting rights, 100 senators, 435 representatives and occasionally a vice president.
palani
24th March 2013, 10:12 AM
http://i47.tinypic.com/sv00g1.jpg
Next time you have a distress on a highway or common street you might ask the distressor if he derives his authority from the king. If not then he might just be a common highwayman.
palani
24th March 2013, 11:44 AM
Lookie here!!!! A reason why Obama has no office.
http://i46.tinypic.com/20ae99y.jpg
palani
24th March 2013, 11:51 AM
A franchise ... such as letters patent ... or land patent.
http://i47.tinypic.com/34pncdi.jpg
palani
24th March 2013, 06:23 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/1oknq1.jpg
Be aware that the concept of contracts was 'restated' in 1938. Lots of extraordinary changes have been made in the past 100 odd (literally) years.
palani
24th March 2013, 06:30 PM
And in every judgment lies an action of debt.
http://i47.tinypic.com/1zzhyrq.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.