1) Platsky V. C.I.A. 953 F. 2d. 25 additionally. Pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynolds V. Shillinger 907 F. 124,126 (10th cir. 1990) See also Jaxon V. Circle K Corp. 773.F.2d.1138,1140 ( 10th cir. 1985) (1) 2) Haines V. Kramer (92. S. C.T. 594) The respondent is this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propia Persona 3) NAACP V. Button (371 U.S. 415) United Mineworker of America V. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715) and Johnson V Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) Members of groups who are competent nonlawyer can assist other members of the group achieve the goal of the group in court without being charged with” Unauthorized practice of law. 4) Brotherhood of Trainmen V. Virginia Ex. Rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1) Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 Argersinger V. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be as assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings. 5) Howlett V. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases. (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1) (1958)--States are bound by United States Supreme Court Case decisions. 6) Federal Rights Civil Proc. Rule 17, 28 U.S.C. A “Next Friend “a next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest. 7) Oklahoma Court Rule and Procedures Title 12, Sec. 2d. 7 © if an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian adlitem” 8) Mandonado -Denis V. Castillo Rodriguez 23 F. 3d. 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim. 9) Warnock V. Pecos County. Tex. 88 3d. 341(5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect State officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. 10) Title 42 U. S. C. Sec. 1983 Wood V. Breier 54 F.R.D. 7, 10 -11 (E.D. Wis. 1972 Frankenhouser V. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. PA. 1973) “Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who “takes on the mantel of Sovereign.” 11) Oklahoma is a ‘Right to work’ State Bill S.J.R. 11 its ok to practice Gods Law without a license Luke 11:52 Gods Law was here first! “There is a higher loyalty then loyalty to this country loyalty to God” US V. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 173, 85 S. Ct. 850 13 L Ed. 2. 733 (1965) 12) “The practice of law cannot be license by any state/state. Schware V. Board of Examiners. United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239, in Sims V. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) “The practice of law is an occupation of common rights.” A bar card is not a license. It’s a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is “that what it is, a club association in not a license, it has a certificate through the State, the two are not the same 13) CHISHOLM V GEORGIA 2 DALL 419 (ONLY COMMON LAW MAY BE APPLIED TO THE PEOPLE per the constitution). 14) Picking V. Pennsylvania R. Co.151 Fed. 2nd. Pucket V. Cox 456 2nd 233. Pro Se pleadings are to be considered regards to technicality; pro se litigant’s pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyer. Proof #1: There is a separation of powers. Judicial courts cannot enforce statutes. Only legislative courts enforce statutes. Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 US 464; Keller v. PE, 261 US 428. U.S. Supreme Court (Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 268 268) (1870). Where one inalienable rights are concerned there can be no rule making and exercising ones Unalienable rights cannot be turned into a crime.) Supreme courts ruled Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime“In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.] TURNER v. ROGERS et al. certiorari to the supreme court of south Carolina No. 10-10. Argued March 23, 2011--Decided June 20, 2011 When the action being brought is capable of repetition the defendant’s paperwork cannot be moot. PEOPLE. People are supreme, not the state. I.Waring vs.the Mayor of Savanah,60 Georgiaat 93]; The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516]; Article VII. In suits at common law, where the value is controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Preamble to the US and NY Constitutions - We the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution...;...at The Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455, 2 DALL (1793) pp471-472]: The People of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.[Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend.9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:05:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015