obligation to protect

[eye2i2hear]

First, wow. I had no idea India was anywhere near to the Euro-Anglo-American System. Fascinating. (guilty, as too-typical American, in my own little world I suppose). Deff interesting to see that They play with words and are word artisans there as They do here. Nothing new under the sun, it seems yet again. Thanks for bringing us into the loop!

You might also try doing a bit of a reverse search on the matter of no duty to protect, via looking at cases where folks tried to sue over not being protected, and The Courts rule that there is no duty? Just a thought~

Curious side question: do you folks find the likes of Case Law for India available via the web for searching? Or how about access to Law Libraries?

Thanks~
(oh, and kudos on your linguistic skills!)

[nick80]

(02-28-2012 08:36 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Nick, perhaps another way to approach this issue is to seek damages. If there is an obligation then it would seem that a failure to support that obligation would result in a valid claim for damages. Perhaps if you approached in this fashion you could then force them to admit that there is no actual obligation.

Just a thought. Best of luck with this!

- NonE

NonE, it is bit tricky i once asked a lawyer .can we sue govt every time terrorist attack happen coz govt in breach of their duty to protect.?
reply: yes you can but don't expect any monetary gain for victims but yes courts can instruct govt to pass strict laws.
i immediately dropped the idea strict laws means more power to state.i will try your suggestion in individual case & see how it goes ...thanks

[NonEntity]

(02-28-2012 12:31 PM)nick80 Wrote:  NonE, it is bit tricky i once asked a lawyer .can we sue govt every time terrorist attack happen coz govt in breach of their duty to protect.?
reply: yes you can but don't expect any monetary gain for victims but yes courts can instruct govt to pass strict laws.
i immediately dropped the idea strict laws means more power to state.i will try your suggestion in individual case & see how it goes ...thanks

Nick,

But passing more laws is not "being made whole." It is not restoring YOU.

If you have an insurance contract and you suffer a loss, you are not made whole if the insurance company donates a new wing to your local hospital. You could sue for breach of contract if they claimed that the hospital wing was proper restitution to your loss.

But we all know it's just a game they play. I'm just throwing out an idea that perhaps you can use to force them to show their lies.

Again, best of luck with this.

- NonE

P.S. I know that one thing Marc has done is to refer to the "founding documents" of the government. For instance the (I'm going to paraphrase here as I don't know the exact wording and quotes) Arizona constitution states that the government of the state of Arizona is formed for the purpose of protecting individual rights and property. So Marc points back to that to see whether the actions of the various bits of the legal system are in fact supporting that principle aim of protecting THE INDIVIDUAL.

[nick80]

(02-28-2012 10:12 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  First, wow. I had no idea India was anywhere near to the Euro-Anglo-American System. Fascinating. (guilty, as too-typical American, in my own little world I suppose). Deff interesting to see that They play with words and are word artisans there as They do here. Nothing new under the sun, it seems yet again. Thanks for bringing us into the loop!

You might also try doing a bit of a reverse search on the matter of no duty to protect, via looking at cases where folks tried to sue over not being protected, and The Courts rule that there is no duty? Just a thought~

Curious side question: do you folks find the likes of Case Law for India available via the web for searching? Or how about access to Law Libraries?

Thanks~
(oh, and kudos on your linguistic skills!)

thanks for appreciation .judges behave in same manner how marc describes same anger/screaming when they are trapped in their own cage.putting people in jail for tax evasion, drug use & traffic tickets.one bigger problem on top of that is there is no jury system in india.for case law i usually research online (http://www.indiankanoon.org/) can you help me in this .traffic challans civil or criminal? if civil plz tell nature of case contract or tort?
what if judge replies quasi contract. i don't know the comeback for quasi contract

---

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:31 PM)nick80 Wrote:  NonE, it is bit tricky i once asked a lawyer .can we sue govt every time terrorist attack happen coz govt in breach of their duty to protect.?
reply: yes you can but don't expect any monetary gain for victims but yes courts can instruct govt to pass strict laws.
i immediately dropped the idea strict laws means more power to state.i will try your suggestion in individual case & see how it goes ...thanks

Nick,

But passing more laws is not "being made whole." It is not restoring YOU.

If you have an insurance contract and you suffer a loss, you are not made whole if the insurance company donates a new wing to your local hospital. You could sue for breach of contract if they claimed that the hospital wing was proper restitution to your loss.

But we all know it's just a game they play. I'm just throwing out an idea that perhaps you can use to force them to show their lies.

Again, best of luck with this.

- NonE

P.S. I know that one thing Marc has done is to refer to the "founding documents" of the government. For instance the (I'm going to paraphrase here as I don't know the exact wording and quotes) Arizona constitution states that the government of the state of Arizona is formed for the purpose of protecting individual rights and property. So Marc points back to that to see whether the actions of the various bits of the legal system are in fact supporting that principle aim of protecting THE INDIVIDUAL.

thanks for explanation.you are right most of the times lawyers gives answers that are distracting in nature.

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 01:40 PM)nick80 Wrote:  ... can you help me in this .traffic challans civil or criminal? if civil plz tell nature of case contract or tort?
what if judge replies quasi contract. i don't know the comeback for quasi contract

Yes, we encounter this sort of trick here as well. Hopefully you'll get some additional replies from others here on the forum on this specific matter. [you can also send a message to Marc, personally, with the forum personal message service]
I'd offer that you consider approaching it via asking about the type of evidence required to establish guilt/to convict. Some questions along that line might be:

Do I have to enter a plea if there is no valid cause of action, yes or no, please?

Are there any allegations of injury, yes or no, please?

Is there evidence of a complaining party, yes or no, please?

Is this case in the nature of a contract dispute or tort, yes or no, please?

Is this case in the nature of an injury or damage, yes or no, please?

Is this an adversarial proceeding, yes or no, please?

What makes one a true adversary?
(Do adversary proceedings require a justicible case of controversy to be heard?)

Does this court have jurisdiction if there are not true adversaries before it?

Does there have to be a case of a violation of a legal right in order for there to be adversary?

Also remember, each of these general approaches is about the overall picture (i.e. there are several key legal errors/contradictions). Thus you typically won't necessarily have to have them respond yes or no, nor responsively to every specific. And they'll typical pontificate and dodge in hopes of distracting and shifting focus anyway. You can simply move on to the next target issue, because:

always keep in mind (at least as it is here) sadly, unless the Judge has enough integrity to toss the case out, because he sees your awareness of the matter via your questions, the case is as often as not going to have to go to Appeal in order to get a favorable verdict. And also keep in mind, an Appeal (again, at least here) requires a Court Record of the case.

Keep us updated on your legalland there for sure. Much appreciated.

[NonEntity]

For all you skeptics out there...

(02-28-2012 01:40 PM)nick80 Wrote:  thanks for explanation.you are right most of the times lawyers gives answers that are distracting in nature.

Seeeee!!! Even in India they recognize my sterling wonderfulness and correctitudinous ways!

So THERE!

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(02-28-2012 03:47 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Seeeee!!!

- NonE

(02-28-2012 01:40 PM)nick80 Wrote:  thanks for explanation, you are. right, most of the times lawyers gives answers that are distracting in nature.

meh
It is of course, all in the eyE of the Be holder.

AEngloish not being his native tongue, he simply was unsure of how to express that YOU ARE --in spite of your NamE.

So THERE! indeed

[nick80]

(02-28-2012 03:11 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:40 PM)nick80 Wrote:  ... can you help me in this .traffic challans civil or criminal? if civil plz tell nature of case contract or tort?
what if judge replies quasi contract. i don't know the comeback for quasi contract

Yes, we encounter this sort of trick here as well. Hopefully you'll get some additional replies from others here on the forum on this specific matter. [you can also send a message to Marc, personally, with the forum personal message service]
I'd offer that you consider approaching it via asking about the type of evidence required to establish guilt/to convict. Some questions along that line might be:

Do I have to enter a plea if there is no valid cause of action, yes or no, please?

Are there any allegations of injury, yes or no, please?

Is there evidence of a complaining party, yes or no, please?

Is this case in the nature of a contract dispute or tort, yes or no, please?

Is this case in the nature of an injury or damage, yes or no, please?

Is this an adversarial proceeding, yes or no, please?

What makes one a true adversary?
(Do adversary proceedings require a justicible case of controversy to be heard?)

Does this court have jurisdiction if there are not true adversaries before it?

Does there have to be a case of a violation of a legal right in order for there to be adversary?

Also remember, each of these general approaches is about the overall picture (i.e. there are several key legal errors/contradictions). Thus you typically won't necessarily have to have them respond yes or no, nor responsively to every specific. And they'll typical pontificate and dodge in hopes of distracting and shifting focus anyway. You can simply move on to the next target issue, because:

always keep in mind (at least as it is here) sadly, unless the Judge has enough integrity to toss the case out, because he sees your awareness of the matter via your questions, the case is as often as not going to have to go to Appeal in order to get a favorable verdict. And also keep in mind, an Appeal (again, at least here) requires a Court Record of the case.

Keep us updated on your legalland there for sure. Much appreciated.

Thanks for detailed response and all the important pointers. In india all courts are court of record but I intentionally avoid bill thornton approach if you are familiar with his works.irish guy bill gilroy follows his approach(http://www.1215.org/index.html).

[eye2i2hear]

(02-29-2012 06:47 AM)nick80 Wrote:  ...In india all courts are court of record but I intentionally avoid bill thornton approach if you are familiar with his works.irish guy bill gilroy follows his approach(http://www.1215.org/index.html).

Here in The States.U.S. it varies widely as to which "Courts" provide the Court Record and which you can request, and even which you have to pay for yourself (upfront or afterwards).

I'm not familiar at all with Bill Thornton or his approach, nor Bill Gilroy --which btw, the link you give doesn't work for me; I get a "file not found" when clicking it? Dunno if that's an international issue or just a incorrect link? I may StartPage (search) the names if time provides...

As far as Appeals here, tho, I have an attorney who states "on the record" point blank, that: no Record, no Appeal. (he even adds that if there's no Record, in The Courts eyes, it never happened! how'zat for some voodoo magic?!)


Purely out of curiosity, and a total side-bar, would it be too forward of me to ask if English is your native, or is it a second tongue? ("I'd prefer not to discuss such" is a quite honorable reply)

[Grey beard]

(02-29-2012 09:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  I'm not familiar at all with Bill Thornton or his approach,

Bill T. counterclaims. His philosophy differs from what I see here in that he has no qualms about using court orders to turn the Sheriff's guns on cops or others that violate his right to contract freely. He has a site called 1215.org. It also seems he prefers to sue the irs for what they have taken rather than prevent them from taking it. I think he figures it costs them $20,000 - $120,000 to defend against him each time he sues them for stealing wages, and going in as plaintiff has other advantages.

My first succesful contest with authority borrowed some of what I learned from him. I completely ignored their ticket, and sent them notice that I would make their oaths of office issue and sue them for violating their oaths and duties. No, I don't believe in their oaths, but they at least want others to think that they do. Ultimately the tactic worked, and the ticket was dismissed. That was after I was in default for not making appearance.

I'll admit that I'm not as non aggression enlightened as could be, and so the thought of grinding them in their own machine appeals to me.

[nick80]

(02-29-2012 09:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Here in The States.U.S. it varies widely as to which "Courts" provide the Court Record and which you can request, and even which you have to pay for yourself (upfront or afterwards).

I'm not familiar at all with Bill Thornton or his approach, nor Bill Gilroy --which btw, the link you give doesn't work for me; I get a "file not found" when clicking it? Dunno if that's an international issue or just a incorrect link? I may StartPage (search) the names if time provides...

As far as Appeals here, tho, I have an attorney who states "on the record" point blank, that: no Record, no Appeal. (he even adds that if there's no Record, in The Courts eyes, it never happened! how'zat for some voodoo magic?!)


Purely out of curiosity, and a total side-bar, would it be too forward of me to ask if English is your native, or is it a second tongue? ("I'd prefer not to discuss such" is a quite honorable reply)

Ben Gilroy is the guy whose video posted on marc site. If possible please go through bill material http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRsbPC7L7SA or
http://www.1215.org/
it’s good & apparently effective as evident from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQ...r_embedded
For complete understanding of court of record please go through this link http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm
English is not my native language but I guess my English is not that bad apart from English I know 3 other languages. I am really grateful to all of guys for sharing your knowledge. What amazes me about American people is that you guys deeply analyze any information put forwarded by govt/mainstream media & don’t accept it at face value & once you are clear that something has to be done to rectify it,you take actions not just sit in homes and debate about it .
Recently I learnt about smart meters, national id, debt based monetary system & their cons from U.S sites and to my amazement Indian govt has also approved smart meters/ smart grids/GMO Foods/national id. I think Agenda21 is real.i wish I have different support groups in india like you guys have in U.S to take up these issues.
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." M. Gandhi

[nick80]

(02-28-2012 03:47 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  For all you skeptics out there...

(02-28-2012 01:40 PM)nick80 Wrote:  thanks for explanation.you are right most of the times lawyers gives answers that are distracting in nature.

Seeeee!!! Even in India they recognize my sterling wonderfulness and correctitudinous ways!

So THERE!

- NonE

NonE today a lawyer told me that although there is duty to protect but you cannot sue govt for damages if they fail to do so.legal land is really very strange .

[Grey beard]

NonE today a lawyer told me that although there is duty to protect but you cannot sue govt for damages if they fail to do so.legal land is really very strange .

[/quote]

They can be sued as people. Government types will hide behind their office until you ask them for their oath. They won't want to give that oath, and will want you to fight for access to it. Without the oath, they are impersonating officials, and with it, they are treasonous. See the double bind here?

So far I haven't found one with the guts to slug it out over the oath. They drop their attack or risk being exposed as impersonators. They have all dropped the attack so far.