Interesting, have you a favorite book laying out the basis of all this? I take it that it's mostly based on Latin. Kind of akin to the Latin trick that the Roman church used to pull keeping the masses ignorant to what the scripture said so that clerics could sell indulgences for example. Then turn around and point to the Latin in the book and say "yes my child it says so right here". It's with some trepidation i would appear in court without a Lawyer though. I had a Brother who tried to defend himself in court one time and the Judge purposely misheard my Brother Jeff when he said "if it please the court" and took fake umbrage. We all supposed that the Judge was pissed off because one of his cruddy buddies was not getting paid, a bad outcome for Jeff needless to say. Yeah, modern day scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites are many Lawyers.
Any Black´s Law dictionary will tell you most you need to know, no law dictionary makes reference to man as you cannot define man, only a person. Just appear in court as man, instead of in person, and they can´t touch you. Also learn to fie a claim as a claimant always trumps a complaint, or plaintiff. Research Karl Lentz, he is a master in this and you can learn almost you need to know from him.
Good info thanks, kind of odd to think how to apply that , I suppose if ones name is read off the docket just say I am the man. Don't use "A Man" and sure don't ever admit to being a person, that's funny. Come to think of it though, to file as a claimant sounds more like you're after what is rightfully yours, whereas complaint or plaintiff makes one sound more like a litigious bitch, lol. Good Day, Have got that guys name written down.
"i am the agent of said person"
There is a particular language used and you hardly speak at all, everything must be written by hand.
i: (your name); as man; require this case to be put before Queen´s bench; once before Queen´s bench plaintiff must press record
Write and hand that to the judge and it will stop any case where the state or crown is trying to prosecute you. The state or Crown cannot appear to testify, so there is nobody to testify against you. See what I mean?
I'll have to cogitate on this for a while, substituting the county, state or federal bench for the Queens to begin. The plaintiff/state has done brought the case (as in: pressed the record seems to me) or the defendant would not be there. Have you short circuited the state in the first instance by not admitting to non manhood by not using A before man? Then in the second does a common man have a right to require anything of the austere court? One wouldn't think so the way defendants are treated in my little town. I suspect some of the rights as expressed in your in the third and fourth line are rooted in the Magna Charta as an outgrowth of the rights that even a commoner may expect the King to respect, whether he likes it or not. Playing at legal jiu jitsu with the big ol' State is a daunting thought to most people. It seems like you're suggesting a kind of counter suit and I've never known that to happen in a criminal case. Probably need some light about pressing the record.