What follows is a distubing way "THEY" look at "US"
Attornatus Privatus case from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Brad J. Montagne and Teri L. Montagne, Plaintiffs,
Richard A. Wallin and R.A. Mitchell, Defendants.
Civil No. 10-4515 (JNE/LIB).
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
April 26, 2011.
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
Asserting claims typical of tax protesters, Plaintiffs brought this action in state court against employees of the Internal Revenue Service. The action was removed to federal court. On March 10, 2011, a judgment of dismissal was docketed. Since the entry of judgment, Plaintiffs have filed a "Judgment Notice" [Docket No. 43]; a "Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobus Residant" [Docket No. 44]; a "Demur to Defendants' Response for Reconsideration of Judgment" [Docket No. 47]; and a "Writ of Mandamus" [Docket No. 48]. The Court denies the relief requested by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' post-judgment submissions are submitted under the name of Brad J. Montagne, "Attornatus Privatus," as well as that of Teri L. Montagne. His use of "Attornatus Privatus" suggests that he is attempting to speak not only for himself but also for Teri Montagne, who simply signed the post-judgment submissions. Because Brad Montagne is not admitted to practice law, his submissions apply only to his own claims. Brad Montagne does appear in propria persona, acting as his own lawyer, as does Teri Montagne. The Montagnes are, in other words, pro se.
Whenever possible to do so, the Court attempts to discern the meaning of pro se submissions and construes pro se memoranda in a way that makes sense. The post-judgment submissions in this case, however, resist that generous treatment.
Turning first to the "Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobus Residant," the Court cannot understand what relief is requested. The Magna Carta is a magnificent document, but neither it nor Plaintiffs' other citations supply a rule that would support any relief here. According to the "Writ," magistrates in this case "usurp[ed] the position of Tribunal under the color of law." It appears that Plaintiffs consider themselves to be the proper court to hear their own claims. The "Writ" winds to a close by "impeach[ing] and rescind[ing]" the order for dismissal and judgment, inviting "the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants . . . to file and serve on all other interested parties and magistrate a brief no later than March 27, 2011 to show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified," and asserting that "[t]he court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the written arguments presented." The words "THE COURT" and "WITNESS: the SEAL of the COURT this 16th day of March, 2011" immediately follow, under which appear the Montagnes' signatures and the image of a seal. Perhaps the Montagnes intended the "Writ" to supplement the "Judgment Notice" that they filed on the same day. The Court now turns to the "Judgment Notice."
The "Judgment Notice" appears to be a request for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. It refers to "FRCP Rule 59(e)" and "MNRCP Rule 52.02." The United States has submitted a reasoned and persuasive response to which the Montagnes submitted a "Demur to Defendants' Response for Reconsideration of Judgment." Because nothing new that would warrant any relief is brought forward in the request for reconsideration, the request is denied.
Finally, the "Writ of Mandamus," to the extent it seeks relief, is denied. The document purports to be an actual writ of mandamus—not a request for a writ but an actual writ issued by Plaintiffs themselves (though there is blank line for a signature of a "Magistrate" next to the Montagnes' signatures and a seal). Not only does the submission assert that the order of dismissal was an "attempt[ ] to invoke an inferior jurisdiction of a Nisi Prius court, the order being void ab initio," but it threatens to hold the Clerk of Court and members of his staff in contempt. It contains a seal that bears the name "Bradford John Montagne," a 1958 date, and the words "Republic Hence Sovereign." No relief is granted pursuant to this "Writ." If it is a motion, it is denied.
Plaintiffs have had a hearing and the opportunity to submit briefs; they have had their day in court with respect to the claims against the United States as set forth in the Complaint. This Court will not entertain argumentum ad infinitum on these matters.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs' requests for post-judgment relief [Docket Nos. 43, 44, 47 & 48], to the extent Plaintiffs seek it, are DENIED.
comments found in a forum
jack_burdens_phd "If it is a motion, it is denied." hah.
"Whenever possible to do so, the Court attempts to discern the meaning of pro se submissions and construes pro se memoranda in a way that makes sense. The post-judgment submissions in this case, however, resist that generous treatment."
These people...just proof that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. They learn words, but fail to understand the meaning of the words.
Very true. They spout a lot of fancy Latin words but if you look closely at their arguments they fall apart.
You don't have to look closely.
It's larper law; playing pretend lawyer. They come up with these made up terms and rules for their fantasy land of law, all of which kind of sound like they mean something. Then, when they try to do something in an actual court, they learn that the world isn't playing with them. It's like watching larpers who have taken themselves too seriously try to fight actual soldiers. (No offense to larpers. The few I've met have been decent people.)
Canada has a case about this movement that is legendary.
Meads v Meads. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
If you want a humourous case that cites it, check out R v. Duncan.
"Attornatus Privatus" is a spell they teach 1Ls at Hogwarts School of Law.
Along with "Casus Dismissus" and "Evidens Supressus".
I really wonder what these people think the practice of law is like. Judging from the language they use, I think they're under the impression that courtrooms are like Hogwarts, and legal proceedings are glorified games of dungeons and dragons. They'd probably bummed to know that opposing counsel doesn't lose 15 hit points when you cast Error Quae Coram Nobus Residant.
And THIS what I wanted to post in their ARCHIVED POST but could not:
Private Attorney. Attornatus Privatus, latin - in your own court, also the sovereign, and also in the capacy of private attorney representing the court. the court represents the court, the sovereign and the suit of the sovereign.
The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State [Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239], The practice of Law is an occupation of common right! [Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)]
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) 309; In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 175, 22 L.Ed. 627].
More than likely the judge got no resistance once he usurped the authority of their court. As was stated in his judgment, "If this is a motion, it is denied." Appears to me that he admits that he does not have that authority if it is NOT a motion. This is the kind of ploys that must be watched carefully. The judge never did provide just cause, and attempted in his order to convert the plaintiffs to officers of his inferior court by labeling them as pro se. I am never pro se. I do not represent myself. I am myself and do not permit any judge to label me otherwise. This judge cannot win if the people do not quit. How did this case end? Were there other documents filed after the judges order or were only those documents posted that leaves people to believe the judge overturned their orders where it was left? Attorneys make comment like those posted, but those same attorney never counter the argument. They never prove jurisdiction. They never provide just cause. They are very good at belittling those who beat their asses in court, but never come up with a legitimate lawful argument.
M. R. Hamilton
I have no idea how things went after. This is all I found. I just wanted to show a case, like you mentioned, they do whatever they can to belittle people and trip them up, which is a natural reason for fearing these clowns. In my case I'm not experienced yet to be able to fully protect myself. And the experience I've always had is even when I try to protect myself with what I see as logic they simply use force against me. As Bill would say, "They have the guns" and they're not afraid of using them. I'm scrambling to get the "feel" of sovereignty but admit I'm a long way from proving it to myself.
The key to winning in court is to not stop. That is also something that Bill Thornton said. He who screams last wins. When a judge issues an order in your court, it is your responsibility to vacate it no matter how many times it takes. You will notice that these orders must be legitimate, because the people are not being locked up for making them. I did not get locked up. DocT did not get locked up. Kassidy did not get locked up. All of the court systems claim they will jail anyone not authorized to do so making an order. So if you are not authorized, you would get locked up.
Even in the above post you made, the judge even said in one of the order, "if this is a motion, then it is denied." Well, it wasn't a motion and he admitted in that case it is not denied.
These judges depend on the clerks to block for them, because they know once these types of order are submitted on the record, they re law. They will test your stamina to see how much nerve you have, but they do not get away with it if you do not let them. The will try to create doubt in your mind about the tactic you are using. The judge in Kassidy's case was attempting that when he said, "Do you actually believe this stuff?" They will try to claim it isw jibberish. As though someone with that much schooling does nto comprehend, You have to prove you have jurisdiction.
Even in the comments you posted above, these dumbass attorneys make comment like that, but not one of them EVER overcomes the argument in court. I have debated with these morons on facebook and they are very good at belittling people who do not need them, but they can't argue where it counts, in court. They cannot prove jurisdiction, because they don''t have it and the court have upheld this. They cannot prove just cause as even the judge in his order above did not do. Judging by who was making the comments above, it is likely that all of the case was not posted, because the people who were involved in the case, if it is a legitimate case and not something an attorney put together, most likely overturned te judges order. Attorneys do not want people to kow that they are not needed. They also have to keep the scam going. After all, how can you control someone who know you can't?
M. R. Hamilton