DOREAN UDATE

[Prof]

The dnynamic duo are due in court today. The government still wants the case reset, for two other defendants have now been located, including one coming from Canada. The government also notes that the Dim Duo have continued to refer to the warden of their original facility as their counsel. Either they have lost touch with reality or are smarter than I thought.

In any event, today we'll learn when the trial will be held.

[ElfNinosMom]

Thanks for the update, Prof.

I think it's very unlikely that two people would share the same unshakeable delusion long-term, when they are allowed little if any contact.

I personally think they're scamming everybody, including the court. I also doubt they'll ever give up the scam.

[Prof]

The plot now thickens. Back in 2006, the Dim Duo claimed that the warden of their jail was their lawyer. Told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case, in an order by the court, the "Full Colon" two have just now, March, 2007, filed their unilateral contract with the warden, drafted in exquisite Word Salad (behind the bar) with a UCC dressing. That document seems to pledge all of the poor warden's assets to the effective representation of the boys. Unfortunately, I really could not take the time to parse out this blend of savory and sweet, for it is 11 pages long. This hand written idiocy was signed by the "Full Colon" signatures of the Duo.

This is almost certainly the "strategy" of the "Full Colon Word Salad" which will Bar their prosecution and deliver them and theirs to victory. It has often been hinted at on the Mortgage Fraud Blog, but is now revealed (reviled?) for all to see.

The plot thickens; the mist gathers; the Shadow Knows.

[ElfNinosMom]

The plot now thickens. Back in 2006, the Dim Duo claimed that the warden of their jail was their lawyer. Told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case, in an order by the court, the "Full Colon" two have just now, March, 2007, filed their unilateral contract with the warden, drafted in exquisite Word Salad (behind the bar) with a UCC dressing. That document seems to pledge all of the poor warden's assets to the effective representation of the boys. Unfortunately, I really could not take the time to parse out this blend of savory and sweet, for it is 11 pages long. This hand written idiocy was signed by the "Full Colon" signatures of the Duo.

This is almost certainly the "strategy" of the "Full Colon Word Salad" which will Bar their prosecution and deliver them and theirs to victory. It has often been hinted at on the Mortgage Fraud Blog, but is now revealed (reviled?) for all to see.

The plot thickens; the mist gathers; the Shadow Knows.

Is this document by chance available online?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I would say the "plot" has thinned, as has any thread of grasp on legal reality.

If the travel distance weren't so great, I'd go just to be able to see so many attorneys and other court personnel trying not to laugh out loud.

Alsup has probably warned everyone about outbursts so the challenge to not must be a test of restraint of historical proportions.

The USA's office deserves access to a sound-proof room when reviewing the defense materials.

[Prof]

The Dim Duo's handwritten "contract" with the warden is available as the most recent entry on PACER.

[Demosthenes]

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/heineman311.pdf

[Judge Roy Bean]

In the gibberish one finds that the "debtors" (the DOJ and BOP) are doomed:

"That debtor(s) wave all defenses and are precluded from considering this agreement or the filings bogus."

Gashler and the other sock puppets are now assured of victory.

[Prof]

In the gibberish one finds that the "debtors" (the DOJ and BOP) are doomed:

"That debtor(s) wave all defenses and are precluded from considering this agreement or the filings bogus."

Gashler and the other sock puppets are now assured of victory.

Please note that defenses have only been waved; not waived. If I wave defenses, does that mean I'm waving hello or goodbye?

[Cobalt Shiva]

In the gibberish one finds that the "debtors" (the DOJ and BOP) are doomed:

"That debtor(s) wave all defenses and are precluded from considering this agreement or the filings bogus."

Gashler and the other sock puppets are now assured of victory.

Please note that defenses have only been waved; not waived. If I wave defenses, does that mean I'm waving hello or goodbye?

Waving defenses might annoy deneighbors.

[Nikki]

Can someone please send the Warden an official UCC red crayon so he can scrawl REFUSED FOR CAUSE diagonally across every sheet of that gibberish.

[Pauligirl]

some of the motions are here toward the bottom:
http://www.rei-resource.com/rei-forum/v ... 2&start=75

[Judge Roy Bean]

Waving defenses might annoy deneighbors.

In all fairness, after a good laugh, I went back and looked and if you zoom in a bit you can see a dot near what is apparently an 'i' very close to an unclosed 'a'.

[Dr. Caligari]

Their latest ravings:

NOTICE OF TORT AND CONTRACTUAL REMEDY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
NOTICE
On 1-3-07 I received a summons and complaint making an unsupported claim of account/Case Number 06CV_______-10 upon my property. This claim is a trespass, a tort, upon settled and completed contracts of which performance and consideration has passed. I am willing and hereby offer a waiver of tort for damages as consideration for the self-help remedy afforded the aggrieved party under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by the remedy contract contained herein. Please consider your actions. I do not want to do any business with you (all parties). If I am forced into a business relationship with you by your performance this expressed contract is the only agreement between the parties and it may not be amended accept by an agreement in writing.
The party served is not listed in the summons or complaint. I am the general trustee for the trust known as KURT F. JOHNSON©™ which is not the trustee for the ____________ FAMILY TRUST. I am also acting as a representative for the trust known as DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™. This NOTICE, CONTRACT, and AFFIDAVIT is inclusive of both parties and all rights, title, or interest trespassed upon is remedied herein.
This contract if performed upon is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest. This agreement is to include as though fully contained herein all the terms and conditions set out in the “Paramount Claim and Amended Cross-complaint” and other documents filed upon the record of CR 05-00611 WHA which claimants already have notice of as proven by their submitted unsupported claim.
All the parties are proven competent to identify, enter and execute upon their contracts by the course of performance taken in this instant. No remorse or excuse of lack of understanding shall function as a waiver or exemption from the terms herein.
The parties noticed are noticed individually and as agent/actors on behalf of their principals whether the principles are Natural or fictional persons. All agents/parties not yet identified but are active participants of the trespass and performance are hereby noticed and bound by the contract terms. The contract is a strict liability, strict foreclosure, with a waiver of notice. It is very serious and pause should be taken before acceptance. There will be exemptions or exits that should also be seriously considered.

CONTRACTUAL REMEDY

The known parties of SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, DEKALB COUNTY, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, Clerk deputy DENISE INGRAM-PEARRY, THE CLERK, EQUI CREDIT CORPORATION, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., LVNU FUNDING LLC, EMMETT L. GODDMAN Esq., SHERMAN ACQUISITION LP, ELIZABETH WHEALLER Esq., NATIONS CREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, are offering trespass upon my property without having any rights, title, or interest or any agreement from the title holder. This damage is being offered as consideration under the following terms and conditions.

IT SHALL BE AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES:

• That this contract functions as a self-executing Security Agreement in the event of performance.
• That performance is equal to the intent of being contractually bound with full acceptance
• That Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ are Secured Party Creditors jointly and individually and the known and unknown parties are debtors.
• That all known and unknown parties agree to pledge all their assets, lands, and personal property, including their rights, title, and interest in assets, lands, and/or personal property individually and as a collective to match and equal satisfaction of the aggregate of the damages accepted.
• That all assets pledged are under strict foreclosure rights to the Secured Parties with a waiver of Notice to the debtors.
• That the damages authenticates this Security Agreement wherein Debtors pledge assets, lands, consumer goods, farm products, inventory, equipment, money, commissions, income, compensation, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letters of credit rights, chattel paper, instruments, beneficial interest, equities, deposits, accounts, documents, security interest, licenses, privileges, retirement accounts, and general intangibles, and all Debtor’s rights in all such foregoing property, now owned and/or hereafter acquired, now existing or hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing Debtor’s contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party(ies) for damages accepted as consideration. The above list not being all inclusive if a different type of property asset should become available it is included.
• That the Debtor(s) consent and agree to the Secured Party(ies) filings of UCC Financing Statements with the UCC filing office, or any public recording office wherein the known or unknown parties are named as Debtor and Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and/or Dale – Scott : Heineman©™ are named as Secured Party(ies)
• That the financing statements are a continuing financial statement, and Debtor(s) further consents to the filing of any continuation statement made necessary to perfect the Secured Party(ies) security interest, until Debtor’s contractual obligations have been fully satisfied.
• That this Security Agreement/Contract may be filed or published anywhere necessary to perfect Secured Party(ies) interest.
• That Debtor(s) waive all defenses and are precluded from considering this agreement or the filings bogus.
• That Debtor(s) appoint Secured Party(ies) as authorized representatives to execute any business or authenticate any instruments, documents, or records on their behalf to assist in the satisfaction of contractual obligations to Secured Party(ies)
• That the appointment of Secured Party(ies) as authorized representatives is effective immediately upon performance/acceptance while being irrevocable and tied to a security interest.
• That Secured Party(ies) are free to use their sole discretion in the performance as Authorized Representative(s) as long as the action supports settlement of the contractual obligations.
• That the terms of the Secured Party(ies) publish copyright notice are incorporated into this agreement as recorded in the public record known as CR 05-00611 WHA.
• That the Secured Party(ies) are compensated Ten Million dollars for the trespass and twenty four million five-hundred thousand dollars for the 49 unauthorized uses of copyright and trademark property at Five-hundred thousand per use.
• That the assets/property pledged to Secured Party(ies) are the first to attach, first in priority, and first in perfection. Debtor(s) agree to have any paramount claim subrogated or extinguished within 30 days of the execution of this agreement.
• That Secured Party(ies) are free to use, pledge, liquidate, hypothecate or assign the assets herein pledged by Debtor(s) to settle any verified claims presented to them for settlement.
• That the Debtor(s) cannot claim any public interest in the assets pledged to avoid their contractual obligations. Execution of this agreement is evidence of Debtor(s) knowledgeable consent as to the priority and interest of Secured Party(ies).
• That any conflicts of interest among the Debtor(s) created by their entrance into this agreement are the sole liability of the Debtor(s) and in no way effect the interest of Secured Party(ies). That Debtor(s) are to remain in possession of the pledged property until invoiced by Secured Party(ies). When invoice is due and payable Debtor(s) are to submit a ledger accounting of assets pledged with their fair market values along with payment.
• That failure of Debtor(s) to settle invoice timely or submit a ledger of pledged assets will be a default that invokes immediately any and all strict foreclosure remedies afforded the Secured Party(ies) including their authorized representation.

EXEMPTION PROVISIONS
• That the Debtor(s) can be exempted from this contract by the cease and desist of damages and the withdrawal of the unverified unsupported claim. If the claim should be withdrawn and resubmitted again at a future date it will be as though this exemption had never been executed and all the terms and conditions are fully reinstated.
• That if the Debtor(s) wish to invoke their debtor/creditor right under the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES via House Joint Resolution 192 June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10 they can return this NOTICE AND CONTRACT with the statement “Accepted for value, returned for value, discharge and settlement in accordance with but not limited by HJR 192 June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10 and Public Policy.” If Debtor(s) do not invoke this exemption within the 72 hours of commercial acceptance it is forever waived.
• That the Debtor(s) may exempt themselves for cause upon a showing of just cause by a complete point for point rebuttal (ANSWER) of the Affidavit in Support verified by oath under the pain of penalty of perjury within 5 (five) days of receipt of NOTICE. Unknown parties have 30 days from notice filed upon the Public Record.
• Exemption from this contract does not affect the separate Copyright infringement damages pursuant to the Copyright contract if it is binding among the parties.

PERFORMANCE EXECUTION

• Failure to cease and desist and to persist in damages will be acceptance by performance to all the proceeding terms and conditions. Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™, Secured Party(ies) offer these damages as consideration. Creditor’s rights herein obtained are exempt from lien or levy, first in priority.
• Retaliation by Debtor(s) as a response to this notice upon Secured Party(ies) by the imposition of inapplicable codes, rules, regulations or statutes without their consent or agreement obtained by full disclosure in fair dealing is a form of argument which is acceptance.



PERFORMANCE IS ACCEPTANCE
SILENCE IS ACCEPTANCE
ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTANCE
DISHONOR IS ACCEPTANCE
TARDINESS IS ACCEPTANCE

CAVEAT: At no time did Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ intend, desire, or consent to doing business with these parties or their agents. This contract is a remedy for being coercively forced against our will to the subjugation of damages.

NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott : Heineman©™ by the agent Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ swear by the affixing of their signature that this is the only agreement between the parties and that any and all implied contracts are void, and quashed by this expressed.




By: ___________________________________________
Me, Kurt-F.: Johnson©™ Sovereign
General Trustee for KURT F. JOHNSON©™
Agent for DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™
Subscribed under reserve without recourse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

State of _________________
County of _______________

On this ____ day of ___________, 2007, before me personally appeared __________________________ (name of signer), whose identity was proved to me on the oath of ________________________________ (Name of credible person), a credible person by me duly sworn, and acknowledged that the signer signed the above/attached document.





_______________________________
Notary Public Seal







FURTHER STATEMENT

I, _______________, Notary Public am acting as a witness to the originality of this document and that it was sent by my hand. Further I Authenticate the originality of the documents by the placement of my seal on the original and each copy and will act as a witness to the responses to the offer made herein. All responses are to be mailed to:

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™
c/o _________________


AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ in support of NOTICE OF TORT AND CONTRACTUAL REMEDY.

Dale-Scott: Heineman©™ and Kurt- F.: Johnson©™ in Support of NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT AND SEIZURE WARRANT NUMBERS 05-70050, 05-70051, 05-70052, 05-70053, 05-70054, 05-70055, 3-05-70276 DATED JANUARY 27, 2005 AND NOTICE OF CONTRACTUAL REMEDY.

IMPORTANT – Non-rebuttal, silence, argument, or tardiness to the times prescribed herein is a stipulation among the parties to the [ANSWERS] provided herein.

1. Dale-Scott: Heineman©™ and Kurt-F: Johnson©™, hereinafter Affiants, natural beings, free men on the land, living breathing souls in correct public capacity as beneficiaries to the Original Jurisdiction, self realized entities, our yes be yes, our no be no, state that the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading. [ANSWER- It is agreed.]

2. Affiants are of majority in age, have sound minds and are competent to testify. [ANSWER - It is agreed.]

3. Affiants declare and aver that for the purpose of clarity, communication, and resolution a GLOSSARY OF TERMS, herewith attached, applies to the words, word meanings, terms, terms and conditions of contracts and/or agreements and establishes a limitation and/or boundary of those specific words and terms, without subjective interpretation. [ANSWER - It is agreed to by all.]

4. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a matter unexpressed can be resolved and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An unexpressed matter cannot be resolved.]

5. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that implied penumbra contracts supersede or have precedent over expressed contracts and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Implied penumbra contracts do not supersede or have precedent over expressed contracts.]

6. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that in commerce truth is not sovereign and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The truth in commerce is sovereign.]

7. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that as natural sovereign men upon the land that they are subject to any code, regulation or statute except that which can be reconciled within the common law and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - As natural sovereign men upon the land that they are not subject to any code, regulation or statute except that which can be reconciled within the common law.]

8. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an act of congress does not regulate creations of the government and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An act of congress does regulate creations of the government.]

9. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a Banking institution is not a creation of government and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - A Banking institution is a creation of government.]

10. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an act of congress that has not been repealed or amended is ineffectual and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An act of congress that has not been repealed or amended is effectual.]

11. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that Revised Statute 62 has been repealed or amended and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Revised Statute 62 has not been repealed or amended.]

12. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that truth in commerce is not expressed in the form of an affidavit and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Truth in commerce is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.]

13. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a common practice is evidence of a lawful practice and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - A common practice is not evidence of a lawful practice.]

14. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn without possessing first-hand knowledge is superior to an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn by one who is actually in possession of first-hand knowledge and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn without possessing first-hand knowledge is not superior to an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn by one who is actually in possession of first-hand knowledge.]

15. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an affidavit in commerce not rebutted after the time prescribed herein does not become the judgment in commerce and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - After the time prescribed herein an un-rebutted affidavit in commerce becomes the judgment in commerce.]

16. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that this Affidavit in commerce un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein does not stand as the uncontested truth in the matter and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - This Affidavit in commerce un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein stands as the uncontested truth in the matter.]

17. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the answers provided in this Affidavit in commerce are not the answers if un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The answers provided in this Affidavit in commerce are the answers if un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein.]

18. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the first in time first in line filing of a financing statement does not place the Secured Party in the paramount creditor position and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The first in time first in line filing of a financing statement places the Secured Party in the paramount creditor position.]

19. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the natural man is not endowed the right to contract by his Creator and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The natural man is endowed the right to contract by his Creator.]

20. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the natural man cannot enjoy the benefits of his contracts and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The natural man can enjoy the benefits of his contracts.]

21. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that trespassing upon private contracts is permissible at law and does not create a liability for the trespasser and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Trespassing upon private contracts is not permissible at law and does create a liability for the trespasser.]

22. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party does not reflect the truth of a binding agreement between the parties and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party reflects the truth of a binding agreement between the parties.]

23. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party does not reflect the truth of a binding agreement between the parties and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party reflects the truth of a binding agreement between the parties.]

24. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party was improperly filed and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party was properly filed.]

25. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party was improperly filed and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party was properly filed.]

26. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party is bogus and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party is not bogus.]

27. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party is bogus and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party is not bogus.]

28. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that they are subject to liability by statute O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4) and believes that none exists. [ANSWER - Affiants are not subject to liability by statute O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4).]

29. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that any of the claiming parties have sworn out an oath of verification that affiants are liable to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4) or any other part of their claim and believes that none exists. [ANSWER - Claiming parties have never verified by oath any liability of Affiants.]

30. Affiants hereby pledge all assets, holding, accounts, beneficial interest, income, revenues, and exemptions to compensate, or reimburse any cost, damages, or expenses that occur to the claimants if they should produce evidence of a valid claim under oath.

SILENCE IS PERFORMANCE, NON-REBUTTAL IS PERFORMANCE,
ARGUMENT IS PERFORMANCE, PERFORMANCE IS THE ACT OF
BINDING INTENT OF AGREEMENT

VERIFICATION

We Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States United that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at arms length, on the ____ day of the first month in the year of our Lord, two thousand-seven at the county of Alameda.







By: _____________________________________
Me, Kurt-F.: Johnson©™ Sovereign
General Trustee for KURT F. JOHNSON©™
Agent for DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™
Subscribed under reserve without recourse



§ The States United, the perpetual
§ union of sovereign states combined
§ to form a constitutional republic

My favorite part is highlighted in red. That really gives the recipients a lot of options, doesn't it?

[jg]

NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT

At least the principal has nothing to worry about.
See http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0244.html

[Judge Roy Bean]

CONTRACTUAL REMEDY

The known parties of SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, DEKALB COUNTY, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, Clerk deputy DENISE INGRAM-PEARRY, THE CLERK, EQUI CREDIT CORPORATION, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., LVNU FUNDING LLC, EMMETT L. GODDMAN Esq., SHERMAN ACQUISITION LP, ELIZABETH WHEALLER Esq., NATIONS CREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, are offering trespass upon my property without having any rights, title, or interest or any agreement from the title holder. This damage is being offered as consideration under the following terms and conditions...

This appears to be what they're using in response to a foreclosure in GA.

I suppose the Dorean "victim" is eagerly awaiting their salvation.

[Judge Roy Bean]

You might want the parties in the case to look at the latest BS/Blog from the person who allegedly signed the BS in that case.

If he indeed wrote and someone took the time to type and post the recent "stream of unconciousness" nonsense on the blog, Johson is clearly going for sympathy at sentencing for diminished mental capacity.

[notorial dissent]

Something that comes to mind, that I have been wondering about, how does the Speedy Trial requirement play in all of this silliness since this case seems like it has been going on forever?

I know part of it is the seemingly never ending round of motions the dim duo have been filing, but surely there must be other factors?

[wserra]

The "motions" are easy - the judge can refuse to hear any more, or (probably better) just summarily deny them as they come along. My guess is that there are lingering questions about competency.

[notorial dissent]

I had just wondered, I thought it was something like around 70 days from arraignment to trial was what I was remembering as the time table, although I know motions have to be completed first, and they were still short two of the defendants, and may still be for all I know, I still haven't heard if they have gotten the two they were waiting on extradited yet.

I know the faithful are now whining about their speedy trial rights being denied now since they have run out of anything else reasonable to complain about.