Love it, just love it. In reading this statement did any of you read
Milbrook V United States and what that case was about?
It's a case about a common law writ of centori. Telling the supreme court
to tell the lower court to obey. Also states judge loses immunity. Same
thing the judge at Supreme Court Stated to me.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM David Hawley <d.hawley.777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the rule of 3 mentioned and the best way to address in yourLife in one word--LOVE
paperwork?
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 10:52 AM Mike <leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*WHEREAS, *it is a *fundamental principle of law *that nobody is above
the law including, but not limited to, all government actors. The
government immunity clause *only *applies to government actors when they
are performing their actions of their office defined by their office *in
good faith *and that the *UNITED STATES* *SUPREME COURT *has made a
ruling regarding public officials being held liable for actions done or
failure to perform required actions, in the case of *MILLBROOK v. UNITED
STATES ( ) 477 Fed. Appx. 4. *See also Title 36 USC 70503 c 1 and 2 for
BAR members.
36 U.S. Code § 70503. Membership
prev | next
(a) Members.—The members of the corporation are—
(1)
the members of the National Council of the Federal Bar Association, a
nonprofit corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia, during
their term of membership on that Council; and
(2)
other individuals the corporation provides for in the bylaws or
otherwise.
(b) Voting.—
Each member has one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the
members.
(c) Grounds for Disqualification.—An individual may not be a member,
director, or officer of the corporation if the individual—
(1)
is a member of, or advocates the principles of, an organization believing
in, or working for, the overthrow of the United States Government by force
or violence; or
(2)
refuses to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1352.)
*From:* Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Sunday, July 04, 2021 8:50 AM
*To:* administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Fw: Want of
Jurisdiction conference call proving the IRS is nothing but a SCAM
Fred they are taught case law. Not actual law such as staring with the
constitution because they are not privy to it and have allegiance to the
Crown and are taught to be in honor and not dishonor in court. Their
officers of the court and not to you the straw man aka ward of the court.
They can’t represent a man/woman. And yes your right they are taught
procedure also and so called rules. The bar member motto- “No fact or truth
shall be hers”
On Jul 4, 2021, at 6:37 AM, Fred Wind (Redacted sender "elemental4wind"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
attornies, errr imean lie-yers, arent taught law, per se, but rules and
procedures, i had one PD who told me i obviously knew more than he did but
couldnt use my argument in court as to not piss off the 'judge'
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:02 PM, Aéius Cercle
<law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think you mean to mention that *In Propria Persona* and *Pro Se* are
not recommended (and neither of them are recommended even according to this
https://legaldictionary.net/in-propria-persona/ article). *Proper
Persona* seems to be some sort of clothing brand with a slogan that it's
: «Not just a lifestyle, you're representing your self» (see
https://proper-persona.com/ for reference).
*Sui Juris* is not a problem and just means that you indicate yourself
«competent» [enough] to handle your own matters. Believe it or not, when
dealing with a Public-Pretender a few years ago, she apparently never heard
of *Sui Juris* and apparently had no idea what it meant when I it
mentioned, despite her claim to have been in the «profession» for twenty
(20) years of experience (yet I was able to witness/observe mistake after
mistake and error after error on/from her part anyway).
On 2021-06-30 19:07, J_B wrote:
Sui Juris is fine. Proper Persona is A NO NO, that represents your
straw man still PRO se also represents your STRAWMAN, which is a no no
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:57 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"separating yourself the IRS actually wants you to not put Sui Juris or
propria Persona or anything like that they been rumored to actually say
please put natural man or natural woman after your name"
Could you produce where IRS SAYS TO DO THAT?
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
