View Full Version : Legal confusion

14th February 10, 01:57 PM
jvjim will understand this better than the rest of us. Basically this guy seems to have the case against him dismissed by being peacefully uncooperative, questioning every detail of procedure and just generally creating confusion about who should've had which piece of paper when. He refuses to even accept that the court has jurisdiction over him.


How common is this and what was really going on ?

14th February 10, 02:01 PM
Dude, look at his hat. He's literally wearing a lamp shade.

14th February 10, 02:09 PM
You think that might be the source of his power ?

14th February 10, 02:13 PM
He goes on and on, you really should have posted all 3 parts.

Lights Out
14th February 10, 02:14 PM
Maybe he's lampshading the inconsistencies of the legal system.

14th February 10, 02:17 PM
Was his case actually dismissed? Was this an evidentiary hearing? A bench trial? Samuel Browning may know more about procedure in New Jersey, but in Alabama NONE of that would have been allowed.

As for the jurisdictional argument, that gets thrown around a lot by pro se defendants. Doesn't usually work out well for them.

Unless I missed something, this guy just did himself a big disservice.

14th February 10, 02:20 PM
Maybe he's lampshading the inconsistencies of the legal system.


14th February 10, 02:22 PM
Yeah, just watched the last video. This guy fucked himself pretty hard.

Kein Haar
14th February 10, 03:44 PM
Where are you getting that this was dimissed?

It was scheduled for an additional court date.

Essentially, all he's doing is refusing to file the right papers, and saying "No, u."

14th February 10, 03:47 PM
Where are you getting that this was dimissed?

Anonymous internet sources.

It was scheduled for an additional court date.

Now you've fucking spoiled it.

14th February 10, 07:20 PM
It's always funny to me to listen to someone trying to read legalese while emphasizing a point. They have all these awkward stress notes on the propositions.

"and so the office of the deputy when appointed BY the chief manager IN ACCORDANCE TO section 15 article D is not allowed to HEREWITH sign notaries FOR the reacquisition of funds."

14th February 10, 07:24 PM
ON THE RECORD, this guys argument for lack of jurisdiction is pretty fucking stupid because he's obviously already petitioned for removal to federal court, ON THE RECORD.

14th February 10, 09:27 PM
jvijim didn't use enough ON THE RECORDS, thus I strike it from the record.

15th February 10, 04:48 AM
For the record, I don't accept your jurisdiction in this case, because clearly your are living in seatle, washington.

Robot Jesus
15th February 10, 06:48 PM
I don't want to get into it to answer my one question; so, does he use the "flesh and blood" argument?