Mountain Man Win - Judge Abandons Court

[walter]

[Chex]

Actually, the proper way to challenge jurisdiction is on paper ONLY. There would be no video recording of that available on youtube or vimeo....

I too agree, bring in the news media for full coverage. A 2014 New Years resolution.

[walter]

Actually, the proper way to challenge jurisdiction is on paper ONLY. There would be no video recording of that available on youtube or vimeo....

i agree with you there,

[powder]

Here is a man that challenges jurisdiction a proper way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OUSoH5ISco8

Its to bad that they will always dismiss the case with some other technically to prevent case law precedent.

Actually, the proper way to challenge jurisdiction is on paper ONLY. There would be no video recording of that available on youtube or vimeo....

[walter]

Here is a man that challenges jurisdiction a proper way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OUSoH5ISco8

Its to bad that they will always dismiss the case with some other technically to prevent case law precedent.

[walter]

Years ago there was this Judge Judy TV show (still on i think) and there was this night club owner who was being sued.
The man told Judge Judy that he was not the night club and the plaintiff got the wrong party because the plaintiff sent the letter (document) addressed to the night club and not the night club owner being him.
Judge Judy asked him if he opened the letter that was addressed to the night club?
He said yes.
Judge Judy said there is no difference then your the night club.

As ag manic posted earlier on this thread:
The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is
liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity that IS that PERSON.

[allodial]

Minor oversight - The judge also stated "you signed this document". They (courts) only see persons and if "mountain man" signed in blank, well then.

Ah yes. As usual powder makes a most excellent point.

[powder]

Minor oversight - The judge also stated "you signed this document". They (courts) only see persons and if "mountain man" signed in blank, well then.

[ag maniac]

Sure thing
There are many mistakes he did.
But one sticks out big time.


0:15 Judge "but your here in court today"
0:26 mtn. man "I am here"
0:42 mtn. man claims the NAME
0:46 mtn. man agrees to civic address and judge says "alright"
1:13 judge says Mr. mtn. man was here
1:57 judge says he was charged
2:16 mtn. man agrees he was charged
3:18 judge "but your here"
3:27 judge "you are here"
4:42 judge "you are here"
4:45 mtn. man " i am here"
4:46 judge "right"
5:33 judge "you are here"
5:36 mtn. man " i'am here"

see the trend?

The NAME and the word you go hand in hand. I believe I picked this attachment a few days ago from here on another thread.....maybe not....but it's worth posting ....from pg 2 of the attachment

As long as he answers to the surname its game over.
He forfeits the NAME, he claims he is not the NAME, but then says he is their to protect the NAME.
Why protect something that you are claiming is not yours?
He should have got a psychiatric evaluation.

The short of it is that the mtn. man appeared to the summoned NAME.
File your abatement,jurisdiction challenge, bond or what ever else you want to and then stay at home.
Appearance of any kind is still an appearance.

Same shit happened to me before I got the picture and then I stopped going.
Game ended, nobody to play with.

[allodial]

As long as he answers to the surname its game over.

....

The short of it is that the mtn. man appeared to the summoned NAME.
File your abatement,jurisdiction challenge, bond or what ever else you want to and then stay at home.
Appearance of any kind is still an appearance.

You pretty much got it. However, special or restricted appearances are not the same as general appearances. Likely he was seen as riding the fence.

[walter]

Sure thing
There are many mistakes he did.
But one sticks out big time.


0:15 Judge "but your here in court today"
0:26 mtn. man "I am here"
0:42 mtn. man claims the NAME
0:46 mtn. man agrees to civic address and judge says "alright"
1:13 judge says Mr. mtn. man was here
1:57 judge says he was charged
2:16 mtn. man agrees he was charged
3:18 judge "but your here"
3:27 judge "you are here"
4:42 judge "you are here"
4:45 mtn. man " i am here"
4:46 judge "right"
5:33 judge "you are here"
5:36 mtn. man " i'am here"

see the trend?


As long as he answers to the surname its game over.
He forfeits the NAME, he claims he is not the NAME, but then says he is their to protect the NAME.
Why protect something that you are claiming is not yours?
He should have got a psychiatric evaluation.

The short of it is that the mtn. man appeared to the summoned NAME.
File your abatement,jurisdiction challenge, bond or what ever else you want to and then stay at home.
Appearance of any kind is still an appearance.

Same shit happened to me before I got the picture and then I stopped going.
Game ended, nobody to play with.

[allodial]

In the first vid the judge gives the answer why he failed.
They almost always do, but when one is in that situation the mind races to fast and misses the obvious.

Often they do. Perhaps you can explain?

[walter]

This seems worthy of analysis especially with respect to refusal for cause.

In the first vid the judge gives the answer why he failed.
They almost always do, but when one is in that situation the mind races to fast and misses the obvious.

[allodial]

This seems worthy of analysis especially with respect to refusal for cause.

[allodial]

I have restored the video link in the first post. As indicated, I would have preferred this to be moved to a discussion about Refusal for Cause and appearances. With the judge leaving the courtroom, perhaps they re-invited him the second time. Seems he made an appearance-appearance the second time: they summoned an entity and he appeared. As I've mentioned many times "summoning" is one of the most fundamental spells in magic, witchcraft--even in fantasy role playing games. This is not to suggest summoning to always be evil or unlawful. Something to consider nonetheless.

Related: Apparitor.