Minor oversight - The judge also stated "you signed this document". They (courts) only see persons and if "mountain man" signed in blank, well then.
Minor oversight - The judge also stated "you signed this document". They (courts) only see persons and if "mountain man" signed in blank, well then.
All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.
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.
Here is a man that challenges jurisdiction a proper way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=OUSoH5ISco8
Its to bad that they will always dismiss the case with some other technically to prevent case law precedent.
I too agree, bring in the news media for full coverage. A 2014 New Years resolution.
Last edited by Chex; 12-31-13 at 05:24 PM.
“defendant” includes a respondent to an application;
I found that in Canada's copy write act.