Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Maybe some of these current objections can apply to yester year...
An administrative 'judge' may be required to obtain
written consent from you prior to hearing the case per
28 USC 636 (c) (1). I would deny consent as soon as
you step before the judge or ask the clerk for a
consent form and deny. This will put a dent in
"dispositive" or injunctions.
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=magistrate%2Badministrative+judge&y=Search&fr=ush1-mail&u=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate&w=magistrate+administrative+judge&d=B6eVPOrnO5ZZ&icp=1&.intl=us
A magistrate is a judicial officer. In common law
systems a magistrate usually has limited authority to
administer and enforce the law. In civil law systems a
magistrate may be a judge of a superior court. In some
jurisdictions, such as Australia, the term has become
both Federal Magistrates and state magistrates have
jurisdiction similar to a judge. A magistrate's court
may have jurisdiction in civil cases, criminal cases,
or both. A related, but not always equivalent, term is
Chief Magistrate, which (historically) can refer to
political and administrative as well as judicial
officers.
This is a very good case to read on recusal and has 28
USC well explained.
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=28+USC+636+dispositive&y=Search&fr=ush1-mail&u=www.fa-ir.org/alabama/cs_reconsider2.htm&w=28+usc+636+dispositive&d=DOszT-rnOu1-&icp=1&.intl=us
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:29:19 -0700
From: William Dixon
Subject: Re: Lack of Juresdiction over the subject matter by way of
conflict of interst in retainer practices while controdicting yourself.
To: judgethebench@hotmail.com
A phone conversation is parol evidence. Noone must
testify regardless of the information given in prior
conversation.
Use the CPS Handbook and pick out the cites that
pertain to this case and make your Affidavit.
If you want to, write your testimony or rebut the
demand from agency on a separate paper and have
it notarized.
Personally, I would hand it to the person who demanded
it and not testify. Once you swear in, it will be open
season on you.
-- RE-Polk Judge <judgethebench@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear William,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am going to use the CPS HANDBOOK but I don't know
> > how to leverage a REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR
> > for a Subpoena directly ordering my daughter to be a
> > victim even if she did not want to and was sucked
> > into talking about it. If we get out of this then
> > maybe she will learn to not talk to a bureaucrat.
> >
> >
> >
> > They lead her into conversations fully intending to
> > retain the child while they pretend to come to her
> > aid on charges she already refused to press.
> >
> >
> >
> > REGARDING: DA and 6 failure to state a claim:
> > Usually a cause of action will be either a legal
> > claim or a claim in equity. Legal claims are usually
> > those that are based on the laws of a particular
> > jurisdiction. Equity claims are those based on the
> > common law interpretation of what is right and wrong
> > and what would be needed to make everyone whole
> > again.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know which one to use first.
> >
> >
> >
> > FRCP 12(b), supp. 33-34; FRCP 12(g)-(h), (a) move
> > for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the
> > person, then seek dismissal for lack of
> > jurisdiction over the subject matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Melanie never said that Victoria was a victim. She
> > was not. That should be evident in the police
> > report. The Advocate ordered Melanie to go get a
> > restraining order and that did not include the
> > advise to put the baby on that order yet she
> > threatens to put Victoria Couvillion in jeopardy of
> > Child Protective Services, if Melanie is not
> > compliant, as a leveraging tactic in retainer
> > insurance practices. This tactic is leveraged in
> > threatening to have the baby placed in jeopardy of
> > removal while at the same time promises to help her
> > attain custody. This show the DA's office is over
> > wrought with a present disposition at the bench
> > since they say they can have their cake and eat it,
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > This retainer insurance is also introduced with a
> > threat that Victoria is the intended Client, instead
> > of Melanie, being the charges pending do not name
> > the baby as a victim this shows the DA's Office have
> > preemptively retained Victoria Couvillion as their
> > target for protection so naming Melanie the
> > perpetrator without just cause to do so, which in
> > turn produced a conflict of interest between Melanie
> > and her daughter revealing a present disposition at
> > the DA's office and disqualifies them from
> > representing Melanie at this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > The DA can not retain a complainant and also name
> > them a future defendant all in the same phone call
> > while also having no jurisdiction over the subject
> > matter since the Child Abuse Hotline has no case
> > assigned. So, this preemptive plea bargain is very
> > controversial and produces a conflict of laws
> > wherein the Separation of Powers lay. This
> > circumvents my daughter and grandbabies right to Due
> > Process as the DA has no jurisdiction over
> > circumstances when they are no damages yet. "No
> > Complaint, No Victim" applies with respect to
> > Victoria Couvillion. No jurisdiction over the
> > primary victim when they is a conflict of interest
> > as she has a right to remain silent if under
> > investigation whereas the judicial seat would become
> > a party to an investigation and disqualifies them to
> > hear the matter until charges are brought against
> > Beau Couvillion where is daughter is the
> > complainant.
> >
> > Regarding the phone conversation from the people I
> > have been telling Melanie to stay away from because
> > she would not hang up the phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did I miss anything? in the strategy. All I have to
> > go by is what my daughter said to me after the phone
> > call and what I heard while she was talking to them.
> > It is pretty much going to boil down to a 'Good
> > Faith' call here if there is a preset disposition at
> > the bench.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter by way
> > of conflict of interest in retainer practices while
> > contradicting yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> > UCC 1-308
> >
> > Marilyn LeBaron
> >
>
>
> William Dixon
> http://godissovereignfast.com/
> To purchase Without Prejudice UCC 1-207; go to
> http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/20674
Windows Live spacePhotosProfileFriends
Tools 
