Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
I do not understand your "martyrdom" comment. You keep insisting on the word "appearance" as if it applies to me or my process. I have explained and outlined what my process will be and that I am exercising my right of refusal as a court of competent jurisdiction. I have a published judgment on the record which makes my opinion as relevant as any "judge" and, at the very least, on equal standing.Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell
They should be in control of their situation and they do have jurisdiction over that matter. What you fail to comprehend is that my actions are absent ANY consent to be fiduciary/surety for the cause on their agenda; I do not grant my substance and energy to alleviate their burdens via "appearance" because I do not claim or answer to the NAME of their vessel on their docket. I will show up of my own volition, in my own right and for the sole purposes already stated.
Let me repeat it for you one more time; NONE OF MY ACTIONS OUTLINED WILL CONSTITUTE "APPEARANCE" AS IT IS DEFINED LEGALLY. "Appearance" means something different when the word is uttered in a courtroom as opposed to when the word is used in casual conversation. In a courtroom, "appearance" is putting on the mask/persona of the LEGALLY NAMED defendant in question. You can do this in a number of ways including answering to the NAME, claiming the NAME or acquiescing to the NAME.
Obviously, I am absent any of those actions.
General appearance and special appearance are different beasts.
There is more than one form of appearance ....
Last edited by shikamaru; 03-26-11 at 08:51 PM.
It may not go the way I say it should. But this way, Anthony Joseph will R4C timely and have a certified copy of that from his USDC evidence repository and the judge will deal with that. Even if AJ shows up restricted appearance (Rule E(8)) to prevent fraud on the court, the judge will have difficulty saying that he Failed to Appear, wont he? Imagine that! AJ is standing right there and the judge acknowledges his right to appear restricted instead of generally by complaining that he has failed to appear?
One thing I find interesting in my case is the officer wrote the ticket out to my true name and not the my legal name. Not sure how this will effect things. Frederick Burrell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote