Legal Seminar Day 2 Trolls Stay Away While the
Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:31:20 PM PDT
rest of us try to learn something. Zimmerman spent a lot of time on currency today and how the fed inflates it. I once took economic lectures with Greenspan when I was a Randian so I am up on this shill game. Our paper is worth half as much as it was two years ago. This is not too bad if you have a mortgage as you are paying it off with inflated dollars, i.e. cheaper dollars. So your house is costing half what you thought you were paying for it. If it has dropped in value half or more it is not so good. In the 80's I used to say just add another zero and keep on. If you mentally couldn't do that and just gawked at prices you froze up. Got afraid. Remembered more vividly the depression. And just generally became unable to think creatively about money.
Zimmerman discussed objections. Objections in court. Objections to contracts that are being trashed. Objections to fiat money. If you don't object you lend your agreement to the conditions, so when in doubt object.
Go on for my personal example.
In 2000 I moved to Ozark County to a house and wrote up a simple do nothing contract to buy it from the owner who was dying to get rid of it. In 2001 it was formalized with a bank loan and the seller was paid off. In June 2003 my alcoholic neighbors killed my beloved German Shepherd and I was in an intentional community in Webster County by July 2003. I just moved out of my house and left everything.That October I bought my Victorian storefront commercial with apartment and loft for $100 down. I have told this story here before. The owner held the mortgage and it was leaglly finalized in early December 2004 just two weeks before the seller was murdered by her brother. So I pay her grandson the mortgage.
I sold my house on Contract for Deed in May 2004. The contract involved their moving my stuff as a down payment. They only moved half of it. They stole more and some is still in the garage. The contract says they are to pay the insurance and the taxes. Not.. They gave me a hot check for the insurance right off the bat. In MO this is grounds for cancelling the contract. So they have not acted in good faith. But neither have I. I have continued to take their monthly payments while I grumble at them because I need the money. All the time I am planning to become independent of that money and then I plan to lower the boom on them and kick them out (and resell it for more money) as I made them sign a Quit Claim Deed so I could do just that. I have learned from a different transaction that is not cleaned up either.
So Zimmerman starts to talk today about Notice and Demand a legal instrument. Yesterday he talked about Latches, which means that if you have been wronged, or a contract with you has been violated by the other party, you only have a specific amount of time to act on that violation. You cannot hold it over their head forever. And this is what I have been doing in my mind. So he has informed me that this is not a solution. And this has been a recurring pattern with me on a number of levels. I rationalize that I don't have the fortune necessary for attorneys. The truth is that I didn't know anything abut the legality of doing this and that it had a label.
The remedy is Notice and Demand where by you define the violation, how you have been wronged, (damages in court will be actual plus punitive if it goes that far). In N and D you quote precedents. Precedents need to be from appeal decisions as those are stronger, carry more weight with the court. So you are basically putting them on notice, i.e. you are objecting to the status quo and are demanding a remedy. If you don't get it you are also holding the stick of going to court to get a remedy if you have to, which is why you lay out the precedents. This is also the same instrument used to get rid of the $175 mortgage discussed yesterday. The precedents quote the law forbiding the lending institutions to use other loans as if they were cash in order True Bill in their mortgages to get rid of this problem of breaking the law. This is how they are pushing these phoney mortgages on people whereby they pay interest only and while the house value goes down the mortgage soon is more than the house is worth. And this is endemic and the house of cards is crashing. So please, trolls, don't tell me that the banks would not knowingly defraud people because that is just what they have done. They never lent cash. They just lent numbers that were electronically deposited in accounts all on the basis of 5% cash on hand.
OK on to something else. Here is what he called a tidbit. Understand that at one time the courts were all Common Law Courts. Certain formalities prevailed such as the ritual of oaths. Now the courts want to keep the oath part but don't want to spend the time with the rituals. It is presumed that every attorney is under oath in court. You, as pro se, are presumed to be lying because you are not under oath. So what if you don't know that? It means that the attorney's words will always be taken over yours on any issue as he is telling the truth and you are lying. How's that for nice. You will be asked to state your name and spell it even if the court person asking you is someone you are sleeping with. It is as if the person does not know you in their public role.
Here's what you do: You state your name and spell it, "and I wish to state for the record that in this courtroom today my every utterance shall be true and made under pain and penalty of perjury." The judge will stop you after about your first three words because he knows what you are going to do. You just begin again and this time you will get a little further into the sentence. The judge will tell you you don't have to bother doing that. You begin again until you get to the end of the sentence uninterrupted.
Now you are on an equal basis with the attorney which is even more important when there is a jury. And it is on record for a possible appeal. You can even read it aloud.
One more tidbit: Objections and as said above if you don't object it is assumed you agree. When in doubt, object. It is better to object when you don't have to rather than miss an important one. If the judge asks why, you say "I'll be pleased to brief the court." (Remember write don't blabber.) The judge may say when. You say 30 days. If he doesn't set a date you are not expected to do it. But it is on record. And objections are the food for an appeal. You can take a good one from the record and build your entire appeal on that one word.
More to come. When will I ever sleep again?
