I like order in the universe - universal natural law if you will. It sounds as though Allodial accepts some kind of a rendition of the same too. Therefore we attribute a meaning to the cop saying and behaving the way he did.

My gut reaction based in this premise is that the attorney is an officer of the court. Therefore hiring an attorney is itself confession to a crime, to an officer of the court. In other words the judge he would be confessing to is just another attorney.

I think tangential examples abound.

I have seen process, suits and summons for information and financial records etc. arrive in the mail or by process server with a case number on them but no clerk markings. No clerk markings from the court? How did the attorney get hold of a valid case number then? I think that professional attorneys can go into the clerk of court and buy ten cases in advance if they like. They have an account with the clerk of court of sorts and they can reserve case numbers so that they do not end up duplicating case numbers later. The case is not authorized in other words until the defendant or respondent appears! That authorizes the case and gets the ball rolling.

On PACER for any specific State USDC (federal court) I can develop this further. I wonder why, even with multiple filing offices (Eastern/Western Districts) there might be ten or more cases in Civil Actions with the same case number? Apparently there is no problem with duplication of case numbers for completely different law suits! So this tact in the last paragraph seems all the more valid - that attorneys are given the conditional authority to act like judges and clerks if you will allow it.

Hence my post is another plug for R4C and proper record forming! Several times I have helped people R4C the unauthorized process and it goes away.

One suitor programs the software for new businesses. He gets paid a lot for a couple weeks hard work and maybe a little service by contract afterward. When the company goes under the attorneys look for money anywhere so he gets sued a lot. It comes in the mail, he R4C's and it goes away. The same suitor was being sued for some strange fees from his Homeowners' Association. He tried R4C and they ignored it. So he paid up because they were starting to threaten to take his home. Well, he had signed agreement to exactly that.

That gives you some insight exactly how powerful R4C is, and to its purpose and limitations. I think it may also shed some light on what the police officer was saying and why he had the option of moving it into a prosecution or not. It would be a matter of the cop moving in the capacity of an attorney and cops are not supposed to behave as legal advisors. I wonder if detectives are distinctly different? Maybe detectives can initiate a prosecution much more easily on evidence rather than being a direct witness? Cops are trained only to prosecute when they actually see or collect direct evidence?


That may be it!