7 questions to ask lawyer

I got this of a facebook post but I think it could be adjusted for the uk


My nephew has caught onto to the administrative procedure process, and has shed some light into my current situation as well as yours relating to any legal action against your straw man, and many others facing similar legal issues.

I received a letter from Amex today indicating they have reserved a private attorney against me, but not to be construed as a threat to the debtor. Im like bring it on you SOBs. Letter is to Robert W Blake, name of debtor ROBERT BLAKE. I'll post the letter below

So anyways my nephew is only 23, smart Ass trust me when I say this. Anyways this kid puts me to shame. He says uncle, do you know your seven questions for demand ?

Im like no i dont. What do you mean exactly. He proceeds to say, present this to any ASSHAT Attorney and watch them literally, what takes place before their eyes!

If you could see my eyes right now folks!

I'm like holy sh*t this is priceless. My nephew says anytime your threatened with a lawsuit ask these 7 questions of demand verbally and or in person with a follow up letter demanding answers from the attorney and watch what happens to your debt.

Little did I know my nephew studied business contract law in college, how quaint lol.

Here's a real gem .....

Include this in your next letter at the end in the form of an affidavit. I'm sure it will help. Address both parties (law firm and corporation)

There are seven demands for Discovery questions to ask all lawyers, attorneys, counselors, esquires:

(1) Please produce the legislative act and its implementing regulations that precipitated this cause.

(2) Please produce the legislative act that created the office of lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire. Please give me the address of this office where I may go and get a License for Practicing Law.

(3) Please produce a copy of your Oath of Office as an Officer of the Court and where you filed it into Public Record

(4) Please produce the contract signed by Myself, Proper name of the living soul, and you (name of the lawyer), in which I agreed to give up My constitutional rights.

(5) Please give Me your name, address, and phone number.

(6) Please give Me your bond number and your bonding company.

(7) Please send to me an acknowledgment that you understand that you have perjured your oath of office and are committing Constructive Treason against the constitution of the united States of America, the State of Texas and the American Peace Flag.

Merry Christmas to all, and everyone around the world.

Interesting, could you please elaborate on the purpose and effect of these questions? thanks.

In case other people from Aus read this.

We Australians have a golden ace up our sleeves for many infringements and fines.  Our govt of the mid 1970s tried to usurp and sabotage our constitution by creating two legal entities not provided for by the constitution. These entities are the "Australian Parliament" and the "Australian Government."

It means no laws passed by the Australian Parliament since the mid 1970s have received royal assent as is required by section 58 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and therefore do not have the force of law. They do get BS type assent by the "Australian Parliament." but its not legal because it does not comply with S.58

Those going to court - who know of this situation, put in a Notice of Discovery or Notice to Produce for evidence that the law they (police, councils whoever) are relying on, has been given royal assent as required by Section 58 of the constitution.

If they cannot produce it then "Your honor, that Act does not apply. It has not been proclaimed as required by Section 58 of the constitution therefore it is not law. I move the case be dismissed.

Ausk wrote:Interesting, could you please elaborate on the purpose and effect of these questions? thanks.

In case other people from Aus read this.

We Australians have a golden ace up our sleeves for many infringements and fines.  Our govt of the mid 1970s tried to usurp and sabotage our constitution by creating two legal entities not provided for by the constitution. These entities are the "Australian Parliament" and the "Australian Government."

It means no laws passed by the Australian Parliament since the mid 1970s have received royal assent as is required by section 58 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and therefore do not have the force of law. They do get BS type assent by the "Australian Parliament." but its not legal because it does not comply with S.58

Those going to court - who know of this situation, put in a Notice of Discovery or Notice to Produce for evidence that the law they (police, councils whoever) are relying on, has been given royal assent as required by Section 58 of the constitution.

If they cannot produce it then "Your honor, that Act does not apply. It has not been proclaimed as required by Section 58 of the constitution therefore it is not law. I move the case be dismissed.

And has that actually worked for anyone?

Yes Tiggy it does.

A growing number of defendants are becoming aware of this now and are using it in court.

Our constitution is the highest law in the land, Its like the ozone layer, it sits above everything else.

The courts will try anything to keep this quite and tell defendants that the constitution does not apply in their courts etc which is crap of course.

If they refuse to dismiss the case then they have erred in law so an appeal to a higher court, all the way to the High Court if necessary, will get the case/charge dismissed.

Many magistrates will very quickly try to evade the issue and they do confuse and exhaust the knowledge of many defendants who are not fully equipped to deal with it but more and more people are learning of Section 58 and how to use it in court.

see aussiespeedingfines.com testimonial page, recent
see also www.knowyourightsgroup.com.au

thank you for your work on the forum Tiggy

Can't access the link.

Hi Tiggy,

Please try the following

http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/

Kind regards