Posted 6/18/2004 01:42:50 PM by Bill Bauer

A revolting development has occurred.

In a recent court decision United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant in South Carolina has now shown what he thinks of those who seek what they believe to be their rights. His decision to fine Brent Bursey of South Carolina $500 for daring to display displeasure with Bush's oil wars probably wasn't impeded much by Bursey's choice of defense counsel whom Marchant may well have considered to be the Pitts.

In another case two others who tried to appeal to Judge Marchant's sense of justice to help them vacate a judgmnet which they believed had been wrongfully foisted upon them in a lower court, Judge Marchant once again showed his feelings about those who seek to find justice.

Judge Marchant made several comments about how frivolous the motion was and I do have to agree with Judge Marchant on that point.

The pro se litigants in the case used a lot of frivolous arguments and prepared a very poor case not at all in keeping with the teachings of Richard Cornforth or any other knowledgeable researcher but rather a Heinz 57 can of legal vegetable soup commonly found on the internet and elsewhere. In his scornful decision Judge Marchant also took a swipe at both Richard Cornforth and myself as having been their teachers.

Their first regrettable mistake was that they "copyrighted" their names by putting the copyright sign them, demanded a million dollars in silver coin, expressed their refusal to accept "false FRNs" and other jackass arguments and statements.

Both Richard and I have long railed against these ignorant ideas and we will continue to do so.

The documents on the court hearing and the statements of the court were graciously provided to me by Mr. Mark Moyer who is currently on his way to Oklahoma and is planning to be at our regular J-accuse meeting next Thursday evening.

While Judge Marchant was most assuredly correct in dismissing the pro se lawsuit as frivolous and having no merit it is regettable indeed that he chose to pick on Richard Cornforth and myself as being somehow responsible for the pro se's ignorance and failure to do their homework. In fact, a study of their so called "legal work" would raise doubts in almost anyone's mind as to whether or not they actually had anyone teaching them in the first place.

Judge Marchant's denial and subsequent discussion of the case does however teach many valuable lessons to pro se litigants and among those lessons is what the courts think of people demanding a million dollars in silver coin for some injury and refusing to accept the "coin of the land" currently accepted by all reasonable citizens and mandated by Congress as being the coin of the land.

It also teaches what the courts think about the strawman arguments and the "copyrighting" of names. In fact, Judge Marchant's decision should put a stop to the teachings of a good many self styled experts but sadly enough they will only try to figure out more inane ways to prove the judge wrong. They never learn.

There are even more lessons to be learned from the court decision and although it is a long read I do hope that you will take the time to go through the document and learn those lessons.

I hereby denounce such idiot theories as the strawman argument and copyrighting one's name and I also disclaim any association with the idiot pro se couple in this case and although I cannot speak for Richard Cornforth I suspect that his denouncement will not be long in forthcoming.

Here is the link to the pdf court decision.

The judge referred to my website here

The I resist website mentioned in Judge Marchant's comments.

I've been in touch with Richard Cornforth and Mark Moyers and others about this matter and more developments will be forthcoming so please stay tuned.

We are currently waiting on the actual court documents to be delivered to me from South Carolina.

In the meantime I will review Judge Marchant's decision and case cites which he used to arrive at his determination in dismissing the case.

The first case Judge Marchant cites in his commentary is the case of Denton v. Hernandez

This case deals with a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with an inmate of the California prison system who claimed he had been raped 28 times while in the California prison system. In this case the supremes discuss the facts and conclusions upon which the various courts should base their decisions as to whether or not a case is frivolous.

In dismissing the pro se case Judge Marchant also refers to Nietzke v. Williams and while the case is apparently not on line it has been discussed to great lengths in other cases which refer to it. Perhaps the ruling in another case portrays what Nietzke v. Williams is all about when it states thusly:

---

The Supreme Court has explained that a complaint should be dismissed as frivolous only if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual allegations that are "fantastic or delusional" or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless. Id. at 327-28; see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir. 1990)

---

The South Carolina court also takes exception to the fact that the plaintiffs in the instant case attempt to sign their names in red ink and to claim that their names are copyrighted. The Court rightfully takes great exception to this bit of foolishness and quotes Quillin v. United States (1981) in which that court ruled that it found no validity to the idea that a person can copyright his/her own name. As the court rightfully points out, such arbitrary embellishments are devoid of legal significance.

Judge Marchant also correctly maintains that the pro se litigants improperly attempt to invoke writ of mandamus in their pleadings.
Let us examine the definition of writ of mandamus and we will immediately see that yet once again Judge Marchant was absolutely correct in his findings.

MANDAMUS - The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command.

It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.

Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ.

Another major error made by the Blocks acting pro se was to file their motion in federal court. Had they actually been students of either Richard Cornforth or myself as accused by Judge Bristow Marchant the judge would never have had this case lodged before him. They would have been properly instructed as to the matters of jurisdiction of both federal and state courts and where to file their case. We always teach that a motion intended to vacate a judgment that is void must be filed in the same court and must be filed using the same case number that the original court issued when it heard the plaintiff's original motion for summary judgment. That fact in and of itself gives lie to the fact that the Blocks were never in fact students of either Richard Cornforth or myself.

And yet another "proof" that Richard Cornforth had no connection to this case is a statement made by Judge Marchant when he stated that a judge cannot be sued for any opinion made while on the bench and acting in his official capacity. I've personally heard Richard hammer home that point in several meetings so I know that he would have strongly advised against doing that.

Another claim the Blocks made is that they are "Holders in Due Course" of the mortgage, note or property (whatever) and as far as I know that term is specific to UCC law and has nothing at all to do with consumer debt. The purchase of a home is a consumer debt and has nothing to do with UCC or commercial law. Like many another section of UCC the doctrine of Holder in Due Course appears to have
many benefits if it could logically be applied to consumer law but the two are separate and somewhat parallel paths in the law. They cannot be mixed and matched to the delight of the debtor. I teach that one should never use anything from UCC with the possible exception of some automobile contracts in certain states which specifically do apply to those types of contracts under those states whose laws make UCC applicable to automobile sales contracts.

The rest of the rubbish that the plaintiffs filed is not worth the time and trouble to bother looking at but what is indeed troublesom to this author is that a Federal Judge would have picked on totally innocent and unrelated persons having no connection whatever to the instant case trying to make them responsible for that with which they had no connection or even knowledge of.

Any of my readers wishing to make comment on this situation may do so by clicking on the "comments" tab just below this article.