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.
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].