OFFICIAL J-ACCUSE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS BLOG

There are 17 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: question
From: "taylor4law" <taylor@sappllc.com>
2. Re: Case law on statements being
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
3. Re: Case law on statements being
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
4. Re: Re: question
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
5. Re: Re: question
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
6. Re: Case law on statements being
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
7. Re: sometimes "stuff" just happens . . . . .
From: KURT6441@CS.COM
8. :question, firsthand knowledge can testify as a fact witness
From: "Kingsman Funding" <kngsfund@bellsouth.net>
9. Re: sometimes "stuff" just happens . . . . .
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
10. Fw: Case law on statements being
From: "The Handyman" <ebob@bellsouth.net>
11. Acceptable message policies.
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
12. Re: question
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
13. Re: Re: question
From: "rs" <rickard@adelphia.net>
14. Re: Re: question
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
15. Re: question
From: "Taylor" <taylor@sappllc.com>
16. Re: Re: question
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
17. .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on www.RichardCornforth.com
From: "Scotsman" <scotsman@695online.com>

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:04:14 -0000
From: "taylor4law" <taylor@sappllc.com>
Subject: Re: question

--- In Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com, <charliegirl2005@s...>
wrote:
> Is it the court's local rules that an attorney cannot testify?
> Circuit Court?
> Or ANY court?
>
> charliegirl2005

The actual case that Richard refers to is Trinsey v. Pagliaro. It is
not a US Supreme Court case, however since we have the right to equal
protection under the law, you can plead it in. The holding in the case
was "statements of counsel in brief or argument while the may be
informative to the court they are not sufficient for a motion to
dismiss or a summary judgment."

Taylor

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:30:30 -0400
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Case law on statements being

RS thank you. I wanted to finish the thread before I say any thing but you
did.
they are expecting us to deny the signature. Hell we did it so why not admit
it. Right.

NOW NOW NOW chill

Think about it. We created a demand deposit account by signing the
application. Right?

sooo.. we have created credit. credit we can use at will. They also are
making money off the money you created. Right. So if you create it is it not
yours.

Do a search for modern money mechanics. Go to the local collage and buy a
economics 101 book. I have over 1/2 dozen copies from eco books that say i
created it therefore it must be mine. Banks can not loan other depositors
money.... look at their charter,

well then where does the money come from? YOU CREATE IT NOT THEM.

The good book says AGREE WITH THINE ADVERSARIES right. So agree with them,
BUT tell them that you r understanding was you created the money for the
benefit of the bot of you.

Now it is not that simple but work at it and read modern money mechanics and
eco books. The banks books always have to balance and when you can not loan
others money out... it come from some where.

I can scan some info if needed but it takes a long time.

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:32:10 -0400
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Case law on statements being

handyman contact me off group for a teacher of banking and eco 101's phone
number and e-mail

On 7/28/05, The Handyman <ebob@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: question

charliegirl2005:
Only someone with firsthand knowledge can
testify as a fact witness. Attorneys are
con-stanly testifing and the courts are accepting
it as fact. If you know you can keep this from
happening. Challenge the idiot, he probably
doesn't know he can't testify and check it out
if he can he may not be able to be the attorney
on the case. can't remember the case law but it
is fun when you put a county attorney on the
stand. dru

--- taylor4law <taylor@sappllc.com> wrote:

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:57:33 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Re: question

Yes, I consequently found this out.
Other than opening and closing statements, they cannot testify.
Object your ASS off if they do and preserve your record for appeal.
; )
Charlene

----- Original Message -----
From: Dru Knight
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Cornforth-Strategies] Re: question

--- taylor4law <taylor@sappllc.com> wrote:

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Case law on statements being

handyman:
go to the yahoo group site for Commercial
Redemption download the file in the file section
for Commercial Redemption manual follow the
instructions it is to simple but it will get them
off her back.. dru

--- Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com> wrote:

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:14:24 EDT
From: KURT6441@CS.COM
Subject: Re: sometimes "stuff" just happens . . . . .

Here's another one that is pulled on Government Employee's (me being one). I
work in the city of Denver, CO and we are taxed by the city to work in the
city $5.00 a month in a government job. I wonder what that money is used for and
what the reasoning is behind that. I have to pay a tax to work within the
government.
Kurt

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 02:23:14 -0500
From: "Kingsman Funding" <kngsfund@bellsouth.net>
Subject: :question, firsthand knowledge can testify as a fact witness

I have been in motion hearings and in trials and the proceedures are drasticlly different. What you have said is exactly correct in a trial hearing but in arging a motion there is usally no witness there and it is suppose to be a motion on law and pleadings not on the facts so the lawyers are expected to do all the talking.
Still you cannot sit back and let them argue any facts not in evidence to support their pleading on a motion that turns on law and not testimony or fact.
Below are some examples of how this has been handled in court .

-----
This is in dispute Your Honor, Arguing facts not in evidence. and it is prejudicing the court's decision to hear them.

if he persists

I ask the Court to instruct opposing counsel to keep his arguments to facts proven before the Court, not allegation and opinions such as this not in evidence.

I would respectfully ask the court where it is fact in evidence that has not been rebutted by our affidavit or affirmative defenses, or by documentation from authoritative sources submitted as evidence?

Objection Your Honor

Whose was the equity brought to this contract will be determined by a trial of the facts. We have disputed the claims of the bank [[[ that in equity a debt is owed to them when the facts of this transaction are disclosed [[[ or that the tender of payment we have made is not legally sufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of law ]]]]

and we have sought the evidence from discovery that will prove our claims and defenses.

Plaintiff is arguing his allegations as fact when all the evidence that will determine this is not yet before the court and we object to it.

if he persists

Your honor, if opposing counsel is going to assert supposed facts for the Court to decide this issue We demand he be put under oath and that we be allowed to cross examine what he claims to know, and how he claims to know it and his qualifications to express fact on this subject.

Dr. Weatherly

Original Message -----
From: Dru Knight
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Cornforth-Strategies] Re: question

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: sometimes "stuff" just happens . . . . .

kurt:
It could be that it is like the income tax
that was originally setup as dues to get and hold
a government job in washington dc..... dru

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 06:12:26 -0500
From: "The Handyman" <ebob@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Fw: Case law on statements being

I've been with Stephen on Commercial Redemption for two years with bad results. Guess this to be so because I did not close the account. I have one card case that needs to be appealed due to the fact that the judge/attorney ignored the tender. I'm not sure if I should appeal a refusal of the $1 offer or what to present as error..
----- Original Message -----
From: Dru Knight
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Cornforth-Strategies] Case law on statements being

--- Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com> wrote:

=== message truncated ===

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:18:22 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
Subject: Acceptable message policies.

Our bi-monthly J-accuse meeting was held yesterday evening at Denny's
Restaurant here in Oklahoma City. It was a very interesting and
informative meeting, well attended and certainly one of the best we
have had for quite a while.

As usual, you will be able to listen to the recording of the meeting
by checking the blog at http://j-accuse.blogspot.com later today.

I spoke with Richard prior to the meeting about the direction of this
message forum. He was not pleased to learn that it is being used to
talk about such things as dogs, telephone poles, Ron Paul and his
agenda of the moment, religion, CAFTA, or other off-topic subjects
no matter how interesting they may be.

Topics of conversation should ideally be strictly limited to teaching
and helping people who are having problems with the legal system and
using Richard's teachings and strategies to do so. We should also be
talking about getting J-accuse chapters set up all over the U.S.
so that Richard's version of Jail for Judges legislation can be
promoted in all 50 states. Announcements about Richard's seminars,
when and where they will be held should be made as soon as such
information becomes available. They should contain dates, times,
location and costs of attendance and contact information for the
advance sales of tickets to his seminars.

Those posting here should also remember that this forum is being
ported to the official J-accuse blog which is then re-sent to Carol's
J-accuse group nationwide. The official J-accuse blog is also
submitted to hundreds of search engines each and every day by me

Each days postings to the official J-accuse Blog automatically creates
an entirely new webpage and each new webpage is also submitted to all
the search engines each and every day as are my other blogs such as
http://creditwrench.blogspot.com and my
http://magnacartanews.blogspot.com which is dedicated to Oklahoma news
and happenings at the Oklahoma State Legislature. That gives both
Richard and J-accuse an ever growing presence on the internet and more
and more people will be attracted to the Blog to learn about Richard
and his strategies so keeping this forum on topic and talking only
about Richard, J-accuse and Richard's strategies is extremely important.

Another factor that is extremely important is keeping the width of
messages down to no more than what is visible on your screen at any
time. The reason is that if your message starts to scroll it will
distort the look and feel of the blog very badly destroying it's
look and feel. If you visit the blog now you will immediately see
what I am talking about.

If that continues I will have no choice but to stop porting this
forum to the blog and that will mean that this forum will lose
a lot of membership that it might otherwise have gained.

Your attention to these matters will be greatly appreciated by
Richard and all.

Thanks.
Bill Bauer

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:38:06 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
Subject: Re: question

This is a bit misleading. Attorneys can testify but must be under oath
in order to do so. That requirement is almost always ignored by the
courts and attorneys regularly make statements that are improper,
disparaging or otherwise unacceptable when dealing with pro se
litigant cases. They do so in order to improperly influence and
prejudice the court. The only remedy for that is to be alert and in
the event that the plaintiff's attorney makes such statements the
pro se must immediately object and force the court to put the attorney
in the witness chair and under oath where he can be questioned.

Once you have him in the witness chair you can then turn him into the
court jester of the day and cause him ruin his own case. If the court
refuses to put him under oath for questioning then you have an
appealable issue and establishing a grounds for appeal is one of the
most important things you can do.

Also the idea that you can plead such cases as Trinsey v. Pagliaro
into the record based on equal protection is patently false and
misleading. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Trinsey v. Pagliaro is a 1964 Pennsylvania District Court case and
therefore is not controlling case law in any court outside of the
District in which the ruling was made. In any other court it is only
advisory and the judge in your district may consider it or he may
refuse to give it any credence whatever. It is his choice and his
alone. If the case were a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case then
it would have had controlling authority in every court in Pennsylvania
and if it were a United States Supreme Court case then it would have
had controlling authority in every court in the land. Such is not the
case and Trinsey v. Paglario is only an advisory case. That means that
the court can safely ignore your pleading if they so choose.

Equal protection has absolutely nothing to do with it.
which the ruling was made.

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:56:43 -0400
From: "rs" <rickard@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Re: question

I am new here, but I am certainly glad to see you explain to those who don't seem to fully grasp things as they are. I have tried on several boards to make such a point, but never received an acknowledgement. Maybe ignored, maybe not. If you can come to the seminar in Atlanta, it would be good too meet you.

RS
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bauer
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: [Cornforth-Strategies] Re: question

Also the idea that you can plead such cases as Trinsey v. Pagliaro
into the record based on equal protection is patently false and
misleading. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Equal protection has absolutely nothing to do with it.
which the ruling was made.

Message: 14
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:59:16 -0400
From: Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: question

Bill

from Penna, do you have a like to this case?

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:26:05 -0000
From: "Taylor" <taylor@sappllc.com>
Subject: Re: question

Thanks for the clairification, Equal protection has everything to do
with our Constitutional Rights, ie due process. I did not intend to
indicate that the ruling had blanket authority, only that you can
plead it in as a secondary authority to lean the scales of justice
more in our favor. Of course the "thug" Judges will still make their
own decision on this matter. I will try and be much more specific
when I post in the future.

With my apology, Taylor

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dru Knight <druspews@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: question

Thomas:
You might want to do a little more research.
Trinsey v. Pagliaro went to appeal and may have
went to the supreme court I can't check it out I
nolonger have the services online to do it, maybe
someone else will. thanks dru

--- Thomas Storm <stormyt@gmail.com> wrote:

druspews
1640 highway 1
Fairfield,Ia. 52556
641-469-5943

Message: 17
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:07:57 -0400
From: "Scotsman" <scotsman@695online.com>
Subject: .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on www.RichardCornforth.com

[from Scotsman] Greetings One and All.

I am writing to make known and give DIRECTION as Richard's Marketing
Director with regards to CHANGES coming very, very soon to Richard's web
site.

It is of paramount importance that communications be streamlined to gain the
greatest effect with the least amount of effort.

These CHANGES are towards that end.

THEREFORE, this is a 60 day NOTICE of Intent to Deactivate the Cornforth
Forum from www.RichardCornforth.com <http://www.richardcornforth.com/> AND
MOVE IT TO THIS FORUM.

Would ALL members of the Cornforth forum from his website PLEASE join
Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com.

Furthering; I wish to entertain dialogue within this eGroup to do the same
with the Calendar portion of the Cornforth website and for the same reasons.

I do not follow Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com as I do not have the
time I use to spend just reading the different postings.

I do follow CORNFORTH_SEMINARS@yahoogroups.com as this eGroup is what gets
Richards Seminars into the various venues.

SO PLEASE KEEP THIS SUBJECT TITLE FOR MY ATTENTION TO FOLLOW THIS THREAD.

I intend to do a considerable amount of eMail solicitations and the Yahoo
Webpage is actually easier for most to maneuver through then
www.RichardCornforth.com <http://www.richardcornforth.com/> .

It is also easier for me to embed into the eMail Flyers the hyperlinks to
the Yahoo eGroups then it is to Richard's web site.

I have eMails from others in this eGroup that substantiate this claim.

David W. Johnson is the webmaster for Richard Cornforth.

Yesterday I asked the webmaster to move the Calendar from the Cornforth
website to the Yahoo Calendar under Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com

He did that for me.

Someone noticed the change and reported these concerns to Richard over the
matter.

THEREFORE, I have asked David the webmaster to reactivate the Calendar until
a consensus can be achieved.

[dang - I like a republic better then democracy . . . . ] [grin]

Until that time we will run duel information between the two Calendar
functions. [as if I don't have enough to do]

So, please hurry with your thoughts and post them to this Forum.

Also, AS A SPECIAL FAVOR TO ME, and to do what our Messiah instructed us to
do, PLEASE BRING ANY ISSUES OR CONTROVERSY YOU HAVE WITH ME TO ME FIRST
BEFORE YOU GO TO RICHARD.

Richard's time needs to be spent doing what Richard does best and not to
divide his time with Administration details.

Give me the opportunity to make any adjustments you think I need to make.

I promise you this.

No one wants Richard to succeed more then I do.

You may want him to succeed as much as I do, but not more.

Until then, be will.

With regards and in His service, I am your servant,

Michael-Edward:

CC: Richard and David