The courts have consistantly said that the "Writ of Error", has been abolished. But years ago i read an article by Howard Freeman that none of the Great Writs can or has been abolisted. If you ever try to look for anything about it in a law library you would think it is true. The courts made sure that anything about that Writ was wiped clean of anything relateing to that Writ. Instead, they tell everyone it was replaced by the Writ of Prohibition or Mandamas. But that isnt true. Like everything else the govt. does, if a law becomes a problem, they simply move it somewhere else and give it another name so the people , being ignorant of the courts modus operandi of lying to the public, not trained in law, simply believe it, which i think amounts to intenstional "Obstruction of Justice". Howard Freeman said the judges hatred of that Writ in particular, caused them to remove it from all law librarys , but instead of eliminating it, simply let every court rename it to something else.. Usually they call it "supervisory control" or "judical review", their Staturatory counterparts. Therefore, he said the way around this is to declare your final and formal "objection" to his ruling of finding you guilty of a "mala prohibitive" law(one without an injured party, save the Corp. State) at your Allocution hearing, will come in the "NATURE" of a "Writ of Error. Meaning that that the Writ wasnt abolished, it was just moved into every court, renaming it at each courts disgretion. The NATURE of the Writ was never abolished. So i am suprised to find it on your site. Im just wondering if any court will accept it. The reason why judges hate this Writ so much, is because of "appealing" your case which everyone does, which places all associated cost, paperwork, filing fees again, not to mention attorney cost on you, that Writ reverses the entire "burden of proof", with all associated cost back onto the judge himself, to verify what he did was lawful, especially since the defendant moved for "dismissal of the case" from the very first appearance, under a FRCP 12(b)6 motion using a "Demurrer" instead of "pleading" which he was required to either "sustain" or "overule" and state a reason why he overuled it without giving the defendant a reason. NOTE: A "Demurrer"(PC 1004) is not a motion that a judge can simply "DENY" which they do routinely. I would still be interested in buying the template if you still think it has a chance of working. Im a senior citizen now living on SS thanks to the banks and the IRS and FTB. So, i dont have a lot of free cash. Can you sent me an email and let me know if that Writ is worth having...much thanks. PS...I got your site through a comment made on Judge Annas Von Reitz blog site..!! She thinks the Writ was abolisted too. Maybe you should straighten her out...!!
The courts have consistantly said that the "Writ of Error", has been abolished. But years ago i read an article by Howard Freeman that none of the Great Writs can or has been abolisted. If you ever try to look for anything about it in a law library you would think it is true. The courts made sure that anything about that Writ was wiped clean of anything relateing to that Writ. Instead, they tell everyone it was replaced by the Writ of Prohibition or Mandamas. But that isnt true. Like everything else the govt. does, if a law becomes a problem, they simply move it somewhere else and give it another name so the people , being ignorant of the courts modus operandi of lying to the public, not trained in law, simply believe it, which i think amounts to intenstional "Obstruction of Justice". Howard Freeman said the judges hatred of that Writ in particular, caused them to remove it from all law librarys , but instead of eliminating it, simply let every court rename it to something else.. Usually they call it "supervisory control" or "judical review", their Staturatory counterparts. Therefore, he said the way around this is to declare your final and formal "objection" to his ruling of finding you guilty of a "mala prohibitive" law(one without an injured party, save the Corp. State) at your Allocution hearing, will come in the "NATURE" of a "Writ of Error. Meaning that that the Writ wasnt abolished, it was just moved into every court, renaming it at each courts disgretion. The NATURE of the Writ was never abolished. So i am suprised to find it on your site. Im just wondering if any court will accept it. The reason why judges hate this Writ so much, is because of "appealing" your case which everyone does, which places all associated cost, paperwork, filing fees again, not to mention attorney cost on you, that Writ reverses the entire "burden of proof", with all associated cost back onto the judge himself, to verify what he did was lawful, especially since the defendant moved for "dismissal of the case" from the very first appearance, under a FRCP 12(b)6 motion using a "Demurrer" instead of "pleading" which he was required to either "sustain" or "overule" and state a reason why he overuled it without giving the defendant a reason. NOTE: A "Demurrer"(PC 1004) is not a motion that a judge can simply "DENY" which they do routinely. I would still be interested in buying the template if you still think it has a chance of working. Im a senior citizen now living on SS thanks to the banks and the IRS and FTB. So, i dont have a lot of free cash. Can you sent me an email and let me know if that Writ is worth having...much thanks. PS...I got your site through a comment made on Judge Annas Von Reitz blog site..!! She thinks the Writ was abolisted too. Maybe you should straighten her out...!!
ReplyDelete