December 02, 2006 Joanne Remke State Bar of California 1149 S Hill Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90015-2299 Re: Illegal State Bar Membership Contract Joanne Remke et al. “Not” Judges of State Bars, This is a short position paper outlining the illegality of the contracts you solicit for membership in your private club. I. Bar Judges “Forgot” Among other things, your army of lawyers forgot to disclose in your solicitations that your member contract requires members to overthrow: 1) Native Born American’s 10th Amendment limits on county-state powers, unequally and in direct violation of your own constitution; 2) Native Born American’s Supremacy Clause Rights, unequally and in violation of your own constitution; 3) Native Born American’s Obligation of Contract Element Duties and Obligations (Article 1:10), unequally and in violation of your own constitution. Direct proof of these material membership contract terms are revealed in a few areas of your weekly business. In the criminal arena, for example, your “plea deal contracts” completely omits any identification or request for a waiver of one’s 10th Amendment and/or Supremacy Clause civil rights. All of your criminal plea forms are, therefore, facially defective – meaning criminally solicited and criminally acted on by all state prosecutors and judges (county, appellate and supreme). That includes all state judge prison staff, from Wardens down. In the civil arena, your club requires class economic esquires to disavow duty to textbook price economics. Price economics is grilled into Citizen’s Obligation of Contract Clause. Direct proof of criminal act of Bar Book Burning lies in your member’s own contract price economic cases – particularly those pled as “price fixing” actions. Your contract member club has “criminally book burned” basic contract price law in this context – just like it did and does to defendants’ and their 10th Amendment and Supremacy Rights in the criminal context. II. Member Contract Element Review This reminds of the illegality of your member contract solicitations, attempts and takings: A void contract, also known as a void agreement, is not actually a contract because it fails one or more simple contract elements. A void contract cannot be enforced by law. Void contracts are different from voidable ones, which are contracts that may be (but not necessarily will be) nullified. An agreement to carry out an illegal contract act is an example of a void or void agreement. A void contract is without legal effect in that the law neither gives remedy for its breach nor recognizes any duty of performance by a promisor. Therefore, the term void contract is a misnomer because if an agreement is void, at its genesis, no contract (void or otherwise) was ever created. A void contract is “invalid or unlawful from its inception” and … cannot be enforced. A void contract is without legal effect in that the law neither gives remedy for its breach nor recognizes any duty of performance by a promisor. Therefore, the term void contract is a misnomer because if an agreement is void, at its genesis, no contract (void or otherwise) was ever created. [I]nquiry must always focus on the persons mental acuity and understanding of the transaction at the time contracting occurred. A party attempting to avoid a contract carries the burden of proving that he was entirely without understanding of material terms at the time of contracting. III. Closing - Bar Judges Moral Turpitude If I’m mistaken about something here, please advise. Otherwise, due to continuing breaches and failures to respond to any of my public inquiries and position papers, I kindly ask how you wish to proceed - as Illegal trespassers on My Homeland, United Turf? To be clear, I practice and I counsel all who oppose you to aim these words of yours directly at you – all: “Moral turpitude” has been defined as “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man-woman and man-woman. Kind regards, See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, The Law of Contracts § 1-11 (2d ed. 1977); see First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland, 399 N.W.2d 894 (1987). Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 7, comment a. See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, The Law of Contracts § 1-11 (2d ed. 1977); see First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland, 399 N.W.2d 894 (1987). 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 169. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 7, comment a. See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, The Law of Contracts § 1-11 (2d ed. 1977); see First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland, 399 N.W.2d 894 (1987). See Fischer v. Gorman, 65 S.D. 453, at 459 (1937); 41 Am. Jur.2d, supra, at § 69. Christensen v. Larson, 77 N.W.2d 441, 446-47 (N.D.1956); Hauge v. Bye, 51 N.D. 848, 855, 201 N.W. 159, 162 (1924); 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 133(2) (1963). Lapse of memory, carelessness of person and property, and unreasonableness are not determinative of ones ability to presently enter into an agreement. Hochgraber v. Balzer, 66 S.D. 630, 634, 287 N.W. 585, 587 (1939). In the Matter of Cash Joseph Bonas, published 12-30-04, page 6, lines 17-21. https://youtube/watch?v=4rElV_w_DPQ
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:09:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015