Another trick courts are using re: R4C

[David Merrill]

The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.

I don't remember a lot of what he was saying at the hearing. It went by pretty quickly, and I have trouble keeping up with things.

So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]

The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite uneffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?

What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[KnowLaw]

The system of thought is become the court of record by keeping the record.

Okay. I'm beginning to focus in on this. This not having access to the Internet is killing me. I just spent the whole day writing a reply which I'm not going to post because I can see that it is mostly irrelevant to what you are trying to pound into my head. If I had seen your comment earlier [it's 8 PM here as I write] I wouldn't have wasted so much time accomplishing nothing.

So you keep an audio recorder in your shirt pocket. Then you can order up the transcript and compare. There is a lot of intelligence to be found in what the "judge" instructs be removed by the transcriber. If he adjusts it at all, then he is not a court of record any more. But since you have an accurate recording, you are. You might use the Libel of Review to set up an evidence repository; a Record in the care and custody (trust) of the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. [The case gets dismissed but you continue using it for an evidence repository - the Record.]

I'm not able to sneak an audio recorder into the courtroom. (Don't even have one to begin with.) So, I'm up a creak on that. But yes, I see your point about keeping my own record. I've been hoping to do that with affidavits, to establish a record. Any chance I can use affidavits?

Also, I haven't pulled the trigger yet on canning the appointed attorney. Just holding onto the letter they sent without opening it. I'm not sure the judge will allow me to go pro se. I need more clarity about what course of action to take and why I'm taking it.

Had a chance to glance briefly over the Libel in Review (on the fly while composing this reply, so will need more time to study it later). That certainly looks interesting. I see why you recommend it. It gets the matter on record.

The approach you are using here and on SuiJurisClub is quite ineffective in my opinion. You are silly to try allowing voices on the Internet to advise you in such hybrid and scripted responses. Awaiting that magic moment - the window of allocution - that is just plain risky. In my opinion you would be best off to get your mind wrapped around these topics while able to enjoy yourself and the learning process. Not while under the gun.

Did you put together a portfolio of the actors' oaths of office yet?

Haven't had an opportunity yet. I need all three oaths, is that correct? Won't fly with just two? Need to bring the District Attny into it? (I'm thinking out loud here; please indulge me.) The DA because that ties him to the Libel of Review? I'm just trying to understand.

I've mostly been trying to come to some clarification about the real situation that's facing me before taking any action. That's why I've been asking so many questions. My questions have been in the vein of elimination of methods of approach, asking people's opinions, attempting to ascertain their experiences.

I agree about the comment about allocution. But at the moment, that's the only thing that's providing me with any hope.

What I teach record-forming. When you get that between your ears you grasp how to redact the situation to simply holding the actors to their oath as a fungible fidelity bond. Look at that Lien. It has the oaths being violated in the "collateral" field.

I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm not sure I correctly understand. What do you mean by the term "fungible fidelity bond"? You're using terms I have no idea what you are talking about until you explain them to me.

I presume you are referring to the following, which I still do not understand what it is or how it is created! Or how it might effect things.

...and cure a proper lien against the State for $20M. You might post that lien as your bond, that might cause some discussion.

[KnowLaw]

David, thank you for your kind indulgence.

I think I'm now seeing (connecting all the pieces) what you've been trying to drill into my head all along. I can see the reason and logic in it. That other advice was clouding my thinking, but I think I'm clear of that now. I'm now listening only to you.

I'm now ready to execute the instructions you've given, beginning with returning the letter from the attorney. I'm also preparing to obtain the 3 oaths of office: the judge, the city prosecutor, and the DA (once I can find out who that is). I'll swear out an affidavit of acceptance of the oaths to file into the case.

So, will anything I file in the muni court (like affidavits) be open to recognition by the court? Or do I first have to force them to recognize, through the acceptance of the oaths placed into the record, so that my demands can be met and I can be heard in my own proper person? In other words, what triggers that recognition? I just want to be clear about this.

Also, at one point you made the following statement:
David: There is a recognized legal principle that, if "all" judges have conflicts of interest, then "any" judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.) - United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

Could you please tell me the significance of this? I want to be clear about the implication of what you're trying to point out.

One step at a time. Depending on how things play out, I'm seriously considering your suggestion about filing the Libel of Review with the district court, now that I understand how it can be used.

I called the state Sec. of State office, but they don't handle Dist. Atty oaths of office. I assume I need to contact the U.S. Sec. of State to obtain this? If so, do they have local offices in the districts where I can get the copies of the attorney's letter being returned stamped "Received, time and date with initials"?