Jul 16, 2013 1:21 AM

Scott on the danger of making a MOTION/MOTIONING with/to the court- thread...

Derek Moran: You have mentioned before NOT to MOTION to/with the court, as you are unwittingly consenting to their jurisdiction, Scott?

Scott Duncan: YES! Martin Sutton almost did that. Darren the cop was all for it. If Darren the cop says it, you probably should try figure out why you shouldn't...

Derek Moran: As i am typing this, i am listening to the portion of the show where Dean describes RECUSING the judge. Was it uneccessary then for Dean, to MOTION for the judge to recuse himself, as in he didnt even need to bother with doing that to begin with?

at minute 32:00, is where Dean starts explaining how he asked/told the judge to "recuse himself":

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfactradio/2013/03/05/how-to-with-dean-clifford-ep12-dean-tells-all

Derek Moran: So going into court and right-off-the-bat saying to the judge- "I MOTION for you to Strike/I MOTION for you to Quash this matter" = BAD, because you are consenting to their jurisdiction unwittingly

Scott Duncan: Re:"what does MOTION equal?"

It means, "BEND OVER AND TAKE IT DRY, BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY ASKED FOR IT! JOINDER, BABY"!

Derek Moran: So, to review: it was unneccessary for Dean in court on the audio, to "MOTION" for the judge to recuse himself? He needed only to OBJECT, and ASK the judge to recuse himself, using the phrasing that you wrote earlier, Scott? (Daniel Daniel J Wentz clicked 'Like' on this)

Daniel J Wentz: If a JUSTICE cautions you about the "dangers" of MOTIONING, he's HELPING you.

Judges are ELECTED, and JUSTICES are APPOINTED. [Scott-like emphisis added]

Since you are in CANADA, then you should not be concerned about JUDGES, because you will never be before one.

Scott Duncan: ...What he said.

Derek Moran: ..so- i guess thats why then Dean couldnt figure out why the judge was not Recusing himself, because, Dean had MOTIONED for him to Recuse himself, instead of simply OBJECTING and asking the judge to Recuse himself?

Scott Duncan: Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY.

I would have locked him up for contempt.

Daniel J Wentz: Civil or Criminal?

Scott Duncan: Criminal. I would have witnessed FRAUD against the petitioner.

Dean claimed he was not the name, but by MOTIONING he was acting as a PARTY, and was INTERFERING WITH THE LEGAL COMMERCIAL INTERESTS of the petitioner.

You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD

Derek Moran: "Only public servants can MOTION. Even then, only as a PARTY."...... holy fuck, where does it actually say that somewhere- where is the source-of-reference for this?..id love to see this for myself

Scott Duncan: Derek: ONTARIO ANNUAL PRACTICE has all the rules. Who else BUT a party can even APPEAR? You are trying to "prove" something you already KNOW!

Pete Daoust: You are either a PARTY or you are NOT. You don't get to say you are NOT a party, and than ACT as one. It's FRAUD: wow...thats solid stuff ???.....is it me or I focus on the wrong stuff

Daniel J Wentz: Derek Moran, Only a PERSON can be a PARTY. Do you really need "proof" of this?

Why do you looking for "validation from your rapist" (as Scott says)?

Chad Brodgesell: ""If you are in court RESERVE ALL RIGHTS. State that you wish the "charges" dismissed, and keep QUESTIONING!""

But don't MOTION and then DEMAND their claim if they have one , if not DEMAND the session to be dismissed?

Chad Brodgesell: So the WISH is the Living persons WILL at the moment?

But is not a motion?

Scott Duncan: YUP! No "understanding" involved.

Ask for everyone's credentials. That one drives them nuts!