Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Current time: 11-17-2017, 10:34 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Juan Galt
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 360
Views: 41315

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
05-18-2017, 05:42 PM
Post: #1
Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
FATAL FLAWS IN MARC'S “LEGAL” APPROACH
In the spirit of what’s correct legal procedure and knowledge, I thought I would share a little truth and reality. No personal attacks intended. I've included some of the flaws I noticed from “followers” as well. Marc blames the Court system for being corrupt but the fact is, his “legal” approach is replete with misconceptions, misinterpretations, misinformation and lack of procedural knowledge and skills. He merely extracts a sentence or two from a case or law containing language he believes to be relevant which risks the very grave danger of misstating the law or reaching inappropriate legal conclusions – which Marc does. Marc thinks the Courts rulings against his motions are illogical (or criminal) because they didn’t accept his “propositions” based on “Spoonerisms” (political philosophy). The Rules that govern Court decisions do not recognize Spoonerisms as applying to the determinations and conclusions of a legal argument. The methods Marc "teaches" are NOT applicable to the rules of legal “debates”. Legal “debates” are called “arguments” and are based ONLY on “Conclusions of Law” and “Findings of Fact” which are governed by the Rules of evidence and procedure.

JURISDICTION or No Evidence the Laws Apply
I've already explained, in depth, the 2 types of jurisdiction – Court and “charging”. The fact that Marc believes that there is no evidence to prove the laws apply just because you are in a certain geographical location (that is jurisdiction) in a form HE believes is required, is a misconception based on an invalid belief. It follows that his misconception taints the rest of his arguments. Jurisdiction is a Conclusion of Law NOT a Finding of Fact. Marc conflates the two. To answer the question of law Marc asks (evidence of jurisdiction), the Court or prosecutor have to look to legal authority for evidence of jurisdiction – NOT Spooner’s books or philosophy. And what is the legal authority they are REQUIRED to look to? The Rules for reaching a Conclusion of Law say that you have to look to statutes and case law. So when the statute conferring jurisdiction is read or printed in the complaint – EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED – according to the Rules. Marc may exclaim Objection! Circular logic! Sorry Marc, in this instance the logical fallacy you are claiming is not applicable – this a LEGAL argument! It's NOT "circular" logic to say that a particular law applies because the laws say it does. I covered this in depth in “My Absence” thread where I presented the 5 types of legal argument. Also, the facts of being at a physical location, at a specific time, doing or not doing a prohibited or required act is sufficient evidence, according to the Rules of evidence and the 5 types of legal arguments, to make a legal conclusion that the law in question is applicable. Other evidence considered factual is of a statutory or other legal authority nature.
Evidence of jurisdiction HAS been proven to Marc, but he will not accept the evidence or he just lacks the necessary comprehension to grasp it. There are no Rules of legal reasoning that require any other proof. Marc is arguing philosophically and NOT legally – that's why judges ignore him when he shouts - “Objection, where's the evidence the laws apply!”

Examples of legal authority: “Jurisdiction (noun) – the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999)”.
“One of these principles is that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. There are several ways in which a State can acquire personal jurisdiction over a party so that its courts will be able to determine that party’s rights and responsibilities. Consent, service of process while in the jurisdiction, and sufficient contact with the State are examples of such ways to satisfy the need for fairness in an assertion of jurisdiction.” See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).

CITIZEN/CITIZENSHIP
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

Marc misuses one of his main cases regarding “citizenship” - Luria v US. He makes a big deal over a couple of sentences of dicta from that case NOT the holding. A common “internet lawyer” mistake. The above quote is simply dicta giving a history “lesson” NOT establishing law! Here's some more dicta history that carries as much legal weight as the quote Marc uses from Luria -

"The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status." Inglis v Sailor Snug Hartbor, 3 Pet. (28 U.S. 99) 1830.
“Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying”:
"Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto”. 3 Pet. (28 U.S. at 155)
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. (28 U. S. at 164) See also, Shanks v Dupont, 3 Pet. (28 U.S. 242

Marc and his “followers” will take issue with these statements about citizenship, I am sure. But their disagreements will be based on their political philosophical beliefs of the subject, NOT law (there has been no universal standardized legal definition of “citizen” decided by SCOTUS or legislation in the US). There have been philosophical debates on citizenship going back to Socrates and they will continue after we are all dead. So to challenge the applicability of law based on “there's no such thing as a citizen” (or State) is a fool's errand – a losing legal argument, BECAUSE they are philosophical NOT legal challenges.

RULE 602 - PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Rule 602: Need for Personal Knowledge
“A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. EVIDENCE TO PROVE personal knowledge may consist of the WITNESS’S OWN TESTIMONY. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703”. (emphasis added)

Marc focuses on the first sentence and totally ignores the second. The second sentence means that a cop can testify about his personal knowledge of seeing you, where you were physically, at a specific time, and what he personally saw and/or heard at the time of the allegation. And this personal knowledge is sufficient to prove personal knowledge required by Rule 602. But to then asked the cop to make a legal conclusion by asking if he has any evidence the law applies simply because you’re in a particular geographic location is out of order – he can’t make that legal conclusion. He cannot answer a question of law, he can only testify to what he personally observed, heard, said and did. He is not considered an expert witness on law.
“A police officer may not arrest a misdemeanant without a warrant except when an officer has personal knowledge acquired by his personal senses that an offense was committed in his presence, unless the arrest is one within the statutory exceptions. An offense is committed within the presence of an officer when he has direct personal knowledge through his sight, hearing, or other senses that it is then and there being committed”. Davis v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 666, 440 S.E.2d 426 (1994).

FALLACIES
As I presented in “My Absence” thread, Marc's claims of logical fallacies in legal argument is misplaced. Review the 5 types of legal argument and you find that - reference to a statute, for example, in a legal argument, is valid – not a circular argument or an argumentum ad baculum fallacy. Reference to how the majority of other Courts have ruled is valid - not an argumentum ad populum. Reference to what has been traditionally held is valid - not an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Marc uses the rules and methods of formal logic reasoning to debate questions of law. This is evidenced by his obsession of using terms like: logical fallacy, circular logic, non-sequitur, argumentum ad baculum and others. Such claims of logical fallacies and circular logic apply to the rules of an academic or philosophical debate as do debate methods like the Socratic method. These debate rules and methods are NOT APPLICABLE to legal arguments. Legal debates are called “adversarial arguments” and are based ONLY on the rules and methods of Legal Reasoning to reach conclusions. There are also procedural rules of engagement (like when and how to object) and standards of evidence.

SOCRATIC METHOD – Asking Questions
Marc likes to assert that questions or cross-examination are a form of the Socratic method used in legal arguments. AGAIN, Marc is wrong. The Socratic Method “is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions”. (Wiki) In cross-examination you're eliciting testimony about knowledge, an event, etc, NOT stimulating critical thinking. When Marc is in Court, court rules and procedures apply - period. He is BIG on asking questions and asserts that he is not making an argument just asking questions. Well, in Court, his “questions” are considered “challenges” to the assertions or allegations made by the opponent IE: you violated a law that applies to you. That “challenge” is considered part of your defense, so it has the effect of being a “defensive” statement (argument) and therefore is treated as such by the Court. Question = Challenge = Argument. This “challenge” is governed by the Rules for reaching a legal conclusion. To reach this conclusion of law the Rules say the conclusion must be supported by legal authority IE: case law, statute. Marc may disagree with the Rules but that is of no effect in Court. His disagreement would have to be on legal grounds not philosophical grounds. Actually I know of no legal grounds for Rules suspension.

CORPUS DELECTI
The corpus delicti is the fact that the crime charged has been actually perpetrated. It is the body or substance of the crime and consists not merely of an objective crime but of the defendant's agency in the crime. It means proof that the crime occurred and that somebody's criminality was the source of the crime, as distinguished from accident or natural causes. NO “INJURED” PARTY REQUIRED to establish Corpus Delecti.

INJURED PARTY
In criminal cases is there is no injured party bringing the action, because it is an action brought for the violation of a State statute and the “victim” (if there is one) is a witness – not a plaintiff. The State is the plaintiff because it is the State's statute that was violated.

JUDGE ENTERING PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FOR DEFENDANT
It is not a trap of jurisdiction to enter a plea of not guilty. I've already shown how a Court gets jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit and it has nothing to do with a plea or appearing in Court. A plea of not guilty could mean you are not under this particular Court's jurisdiction as well as you didn't commit the alleged violation. So relax, don't make a big issue of pleading.

BRADY MOTION
I don't have much info on how Marc uses this as yet, but if it is like his other motions and legal interpretations, I would imagine his use is incorrect or excessively improper. I notice he recently posted a dissenting opinion to support his narrative on Brady. But of course, dissenting opinions are not binding on anything or anyone.

CONCLUSIONS
Marc’s “legal” approach was tried back in the 1980’s (I guess that’s where he got it) and it lost every time. See: State v Skurdal, 730 P.2d 371, 481 U.S. 1020 cert denied (1986); Wisden v City of Salina, Utah, 696 P.2d 1205 (1985); Kaltenbach v Breaux, 690 F.Supp. 1551 (1988); State v Pelletier, 587 A.2d 1100 (Me. 1991); State v Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953 (1997); U.S. v Singleton, WL 1102322 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2004); U.S. v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602 (D. Md. 2005); Taylor-Bey, 53 N.E.3d at 1231 (2006). These are just a few of the cases, using Marc’s theories of jurisdiction (no evidence the laws apply, no consent given) that have lost at the State and Federal level. Now, Marc MAY have wins – I haven’t seen solid evidence yet – but hell, a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
What's funny to legal scholars and judges that have read Marc's motions, is that in one breath he says the laws don't apply and in the next breath he quotes laws and Court cases to support his claims. That's also why his book “Adventures in Legal Land” is considered laughable fiction when read by the well-educated.

Again, no personal attacks intended. These are just the facts and reality of the Rules of participating in legal disputes in Court.

Enjoy Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 07:13 PM
Post: #2
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Quote:It's NOT "circular" logic to say that a particular law applies because the laws say it does.

Because magic and unicorns?

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 07:27 PM
Post: #3
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Boxer -

Full quote in context -

"It's NOT "circular" logic to say that a particular law applies because the laws say it does. I covered this in depth in “My Absence” thread where I presented the 5 types of legal argument. Also, the facts of being at a physical location, at a specific time, doing or not doing a prohibited or required act is sufficient evidence, according to the Rules of evidence and the 5 types of legal arguments, to make a legal conclusion that the law in question is applicable. Other evidence considered factual is of a statutory or other legal authority nature".

"Because magic and unicorns?" NO . Because it's a LEGAL issue requiring a legal conclusion which is governed by the Rules of Evidence and Procedures. Read my other thread "My absence".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 07:41 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 07:43 PM by spooky2th.)
Post: #4
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
If ya cannot prove that the CONstitution and code applies, the case has no foundation. Simple as that. No jurisdiction! What "facts" do you rely on that prove territorial jurisdiction??? And please do not quote the code like a dumb-ass. Or spit out any more of your legal fallacies. Govt is just the most organized mafia in the area. Obey or else! Pay or else!

As a psychopathic creature, the corporation can neither recognize nor act upon moral reasons to refrain from harming others.
~joel bakan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 08:19 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #5
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Juan Galt - fair enough, also academic in nature. I would like to respond in deeper length time permitting. (This will be a short post.)

For now I will just respond with the fact that the practitioners in the legal system are human. A fairly recent decision in the Ontario Court of Justice; a Justice cited feminist poetry. (This was a sexual assault case in which the Justice referred to it as rape - no such crime exists in the Criminal code of Canada.)

I think we would both agree that feminist poetry would not be a credible legal source.

Your posts give a status quo that may provide people with a defeatist feeling. Marc gives hope for change however flawed it maybe in your legal opinion.

I sincerely thank you for your posts. They have prompted me to give serious thought to mine.

Purveyor of the 60 MPH post.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 08:26 PM
Post: #6
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
spook -
"...please do not quote the code..."
"... any more of your legal fallacies".

Please provide definition and examples of said "legal fallacies" that are "mine" in my thread. I've heard of inept attorneys using formal and informal logical fallacies in legal arguments, but they do so with failure - they're improper. There's no such thing as an objection on the grounds of "logical" OR "legal" fallacies. Talk about looking like a dumbass!

In Court, statutes (code if you must) ARE the facts REQUIRED and are the ONLY evidence needed to prove Court (territorial) jurisdiction. Don't like it, don't believe it, don't agree with it - doesn't matter once you are a litigant. Why would someone who was injured by the negligent act of another, and wanting to sue them to be made whole, challenge jurisdiction or not want to rely upon the statutes enforcing their right to sue??

Outside of Court you can call things "legal fallacies", but these "fallacies" don't exist once you step inside a courtroom as a participant.

Remember, the Rules of Evidence and Procedure AND Methods of Legal Reasoning are used to determine territorial jurisdiction IN COURT - NOT the methods of reasoning Marc (now you) are trying to use to challenge my information. I covered that in my other thread. If you didn't read or understand it - not my problem. I tried to keep it at an 11th grade level of reading comprehension.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 09:01 PM by Max2.)
Post: #7
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
SOCRATIC METHOD – Asking Questions
Marc likes to assert that questions or cross-examination are a form of the Socratic method used in legal arguments. AGAIN, Marc is wrong. The Socratic Method “is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions”. (Wiki) In cross-examination you're eliciting testimony about knowledge, an event, etc, NOT stimulating critical thinking. When Marc is in Court, court rules and procedures apply - period. He is BIG on asking questions and asserts that he is not making an argument just asking questions. Well, in Court, his “questions” are considered “challenges” to the assertions or allegations made by the opponent IE: you violated a law that applies to you. That “challenge” is considered part of your defense, so it has the effect of being a “defensive” statement (argument) and therefore is treated as such by the Court. Question = Challenge = Argument. This “challenge” is governed by the Rules for reaching a legal conclusion. To reach this conclusion of law the Rules say the conclusion must be supported by legal authority IE: case law, statute. Marc may disagree with the Rules but that is of no effect in Court. His disagreement would have to be on legal grounds not philosophical grounds. Actually I know of no legal grounds for Rules suspension.

Is it frivolous to point out frivolousness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKgenrE3j8
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 09:11 PM by spooky2th.)
Post: #8
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Again, I ask you (legal fallacy guy, juan) what "facts" do you rely on that prove territorial jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is just a word made up by the psychopathic mafia types to hide the reality of modern day slavery. Obey or else! Pay or else! You cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste jurisdiction. So how are ya gonna prove it with facts???

As a psychopathic creature, the corporation can neither recognize nor act upon moral reasons to refrain from harming others.
~joel bakan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 09:28 PM
Post: #9
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Spook -

"Again, I ask you (legal fallacy guy, juan) what "facts" do you rely on that prove territorial jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is just a word made up by the psychopathic mafia types to hide the reality of modern day slavery. Obey or else! Pay or else! You cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste jurisdiction. So how are ya gonna prove it with facts???"

Not a legal argument. You're using academic/philosophical/personal opinion debate methods to make a point. I gave you all the FACTS required to prove territorial jurisdiction IN Court. You may disagree, but IN Court your philosophical beliefs regarding jurisdiction don't matter.

Again, I ask you to provide examples of said "legal fallacies". Also, why would someone who was injured by the negligent act of another, and wanting to sue them to be made whole, challenge jurisdiction or not want to rely upon the statutes enforcing their right to sue?? They want someone to "pay up or else".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 09:35 PM
Post: #10
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
(05-18-2017 08:43 PM)Max2 Wrote:  SOCRATIC METHOD – Asking Questions
Marc likes to assert that questions or cross-examination are a form of the Socratic method used in legal arguments. AGAIN, Marc is wrong. The Socratic Method “is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions”. (Wiki) In cross-examination you're eliciting testimony about knowledge, an event, etc, NOT stimulating critical thinking. When Marc is in Court, court rules and procedures apply - period. He is BIG on asking questions and asserts that he is not making an argument just asking questions. Well, in Court, his “questions” are considered “challenges” to the assertions or allegations made by the opponent IE: you violated a law that applies to you. That “challenge” is considered part of your defense, so it has the effect of being a “defensive” statement (argument) and therefore is treated as such by the Court. Question = Challenge = Argument. This “challenge” is governed by the Rules for reaching a legal conclusion. To reach this conclusion of law the Rules say the conclusion must be supported by legal authority IE: case law, statute. Marc may disagree with the Rules but that is of no effect in Court. His disagreement would have to be on legal grounds not philosophical grounds. Actually I know of no legal grounds for Rules suspension.

Is it frivolous to point out frivolousness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKgenrE3j8

Democracy killed both Socrates and Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 09:40 PM
Post: #11
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Fruck (hope you're OK with the brevity) -

"Your posts give a status quo that may provide people with a defeatist feeling".

I assure you that is not my intention. There much that can be done. Hell, nobody thought a guy like Trump could be elected. I think that proves anything is possible with the right message and approach. People seem to be ready for bold new ideas about govt if they're shown the benefits of making a change. I'm not convinced that negativity and ad homs are the right approach.

I think No Staters are trying to eat an elephant whole, instead of bite by bite. I think the thought of a drastic change overwhelms the average Joe and he would have a lot of questions. Maybe you should start with the benefits of small govt then move to no govt. I don't know. I just know time is running out and the Socialists are close to taking over the US, at least numerically.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2017, 10:04 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 10:05 PM by spooky2th.)
Post: #12
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Fallacy guy juan, you haven't given any facts that prove jurisdiction. Instead you show everybody here how extremely dishonest you are. Cases are decided by facts and the law. And you haven't got the facts, as usual. And I am just asking a question of evidence that I would ask in court. I am not making any argument, I'm just asking the prosecution to prove the sacred cow that he so relies on. Forcing beliefs on others is so wrong! Just as wrong as forcing sharia law on others.

A tyrannical belief system! Obey or else! Pay or else!

As a psychopathic creature, the corporation can neither recognize nor act upon moral reasons to refrain from harming others.
~joel bakan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-19-2017, 05:09 AM
Post: #13
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Spook -

Still no examples of my "legal fallacies", eh? That's because there's no such thing, ROFL. You're free to say and do anything your little heart desires including being wrong in Court. And you are entitled to the consequences of your actions. I still can't understand how you believe that someone who was injured by the negligent act of another, and wanting to sue them to be made whole, would challenge jurisdiction or not want to rely upon the statutes enforcing their right to sue. THEY don't think the system is tyrannical. They are looking to get paid or else. What do you have against an injured party being made whole? Like the little girl who was mauled by the neighbor's Rottweiler, for instance. Why shouldn't the neighbor be made to pay for her injuries?

"Cases are decided by facts and the law".

To be correct it is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. AND what facts and law are relevant and acceptable in Court are governed by the Rules of Evidence and Procedure.

"And I am just asking a question of evidence that I would ask in court. I am not making any argument," Now where have I heard that before?

Sorry you were unable to comprehend the legal technicalities I have provided. Oh well, have a nice day. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-19-2017, 05:11 AM
Post: #14
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
(05-18-2017 09:28 PM)Juan Galt Wrote:  Not a legal argument. You're using academic/philosophical/personal opinion debate methods to make a point. I gave you all the FACTS required to prove territorial jurisdiction IN Court. You may disagree, but IN Court your philosophical beliefs regarding jurisdiction don't matter.

You did not provide facts to prove the court has any jurisdiction.

The same facts are available to prove the Bloods, the Crips, and the Mafia have jurisdiction...



People with and willing to use guns.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-19-2017, 05:27 AM
Post: #15
RE: Fatal Flaws of Marc's "Legal" Approach
Habby -

"You did not provide facts to prove the court has any jurisdiction". According to whom? You? The Court? The Court's acceptance or rejection of evidence is what matters in litigation.

Why would someone who was injured by the negligent act of another, and wanting to sue them to be made whole, challenge jurisdiction or not want to rely upon the statutes enforcing their right to sue?? THEY don't think the system is tyrannical. They are looking to get paid or else. What do you have against an injured party being made whole? Like the little girl who was mauled by the neighbor's Rottweiler, for instance. Why shouldn't the neighbor be made to pay for her injuries?

Sorry you were unable to comprehend the legal technicalities I have provided. Oh well, have a nice day. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)