tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post9103027462782161672..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: It Isn't Really About Don Siegelmanlegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-84370875749901490832009-08-26T13:08:37.719-05:002009-08-26T13:08:37.719-05:00Here is one analysis by a top civil rights attorne...Here is one analysis by a top civil rights attorney, he provides me for free when his time bills at $400 / hour, RE: BOGUS MOTION FILED IN FEDERAL COURT:<br /><br />"... You must respond, if you want to be heard at all. You cannot assume that because you believe a motion to be improper that the judge, without your argument, will likewise believe it to be so. Just set your arguments out in non inflammatory words. There is no reason to bar you from directly communicating with a national bank on issues not in the case before this judge. If they feel you are a nuisance and that they are entitled to enjoin you from any such contact whatsoever, their proper remedy is to file a separate suit against you to enjoin litigious conduct, or to file a criminal charge against you for threats etc. Just because a plaintiff or a defendant is before the court on one case does not give that judge the power to enjoin any and all misdeeds. E.g., the judge could not enjoin you from smoking in front of the bank; the judge could not enjoin the bank from charging other customers excessive fees, etc. Separate lawsuits must be brought for that. What the bank is doing here is similar to the SLAP suits. They are asking the judge to close you down altogether so that you cannot complain to a federally regulated bank. Point out that XXXXX has no jurisdiction over such a claim because that is not part of the lawsuit pending before him. Notwithstanding the characterizations of you by counsel, they cite only one document as being bothersome. That is not enough to enjoin you from speaking. If that were true, then no lawyer would be able to file any partisan document in court, because lawyers constantly accuse opposing counsel of all sorts of chicanery. .... Download ORS 31.150 XXXXXXX ..."<br /><br />I was so upset when the Judge basically used the PATRIOT ACT in court to tell me I must do as I am told, and also, he can do whatever he wants to me because I basically have NO RIGHT/S:<br /><br />"... Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff XXXXXX XXXX shall not communicate directly with the court about the merits of this case, or about any matter unrelated to the case, by email, typed or written correspondence, or in other fashion ..."<br /><br />How about this for a BANKSTER CORPORATE FASCIST DICTATORSHIP, right here by and through our FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com