Filing in pro per, okay, it is easier to file upper and lower than it is if you're filing with an attorney. I think there may be some confusion here. If you're doing it in pro per, I believe you can get away with it. From the classes I have taken. The key word maybe is get away with it. You've got to try it. The problem we have in filing with pro per is that it is illegal also. And it's illegal simply because the only one that can file pro per is the licensed attorney representing himself. It's one of the traps that David Miller points out in his procedure. Is pro se the same thing? Pro se, pro per, everything is a fraud.

Now once you do that, pro per in front of the court, you have basically established a fraud in front of the court. They can do anything they want to with you. In other words, they can treat you like any other attorney that they expect to lie and all that other stuff? Yes, as a matter of fact. Yeah. They can throw you in jail for contempt? Yeah. Are we done?

As far as allowing leeway to a pro pair by the court, here again it's entirely up to the discretion of the judge. And in my Massachusetts case recently, supposedly a person representing himself has great leeway in his legal expression. If he makes an error in presenting something, the court can overlook it. In fact, they do. It's a matter of record that a person representing himself is given a lot of leeway by the court. Well, I filed my complaint in Massachusetts, and immediately the opposing attorney came back with a motion to strike, claiming that all of my pleadings were incoherent, irrelevant, and rambling. The judge awarded the motion to strike against me, ordered me to immediately file an entirely rewritten new complaint, totally ignoring the fact that I was representing myself and that I was not a practicing attorney with the Harvard Law School degree.

So I filed the amended complaint, or rewritten complaint, with the notation that the defense was requiring the court to exercise against me the highest standards of professional legal writing. In other words, I put it on record. But my point is, judicial discretion, they can do whatever they want to do. If they want to come down on you, they will. And you have to be able to respond to that. But isn't that more so if you're filing pro per pro se than if you're filing as a private citizen? I'm going to find that out. Citizen and party. My guess is that they can do that a lot better if you're finally pro pera pro se.

If you've got the right words in there, they're not quite so brave. Because they understand that you understood something. And they better not just walk all over you. My big broom. I guess I've got to have somebody's got to have a broom. How are you going to file the Las Vegas case and who is going to file a Las Vegas case, not hire an attorney. Now, can we clear that up? But nobody is brave enough to do it. Well, this is the going back to, is it going to be under common law, or is it going to be under admiralty? If it's under admiralty, it has to be an attorney. No, it doesn't.

As I understand it, the rules of court apply to who can appear before the court. Now, we don't know that that court won't allow an individual person, not an individual, but a person, to appear for that corporation. Who can attest to that? We can sit here and hazard a guess that that's the way it's going to be, but it isn't always that way. I think technically person and individual are both applying to corporations. Even in the language, if you are going to be under common law, you can only file as a citizen and party as a private citizen. And if you are not, then you are filing as an individual or corporation or person, all The answer to EJ's question, it seems to me, is a matter of how Nevada corporate law is written and who better to ask than an expert in Nevada corporate law in terms of how a corporation can create a resolution to name somebody with power of attorney, as has been bounced around here several times in the last couple of days, who then appears in court under Nevada corporate law.

Anything to say on that, Ron? I'd just say I did ask Gene about that, and I asked him if there is anything in the law books that would require our corporation to have an attorney to represent it. He said, oh yeah, there's lots and lots. He said, within five minutes I could find you a dozen citations. My question then becomes, is that at the root of law or is that case law that has become accepted? become accepted. That is a law that has become case law in every state. Corporations cannot be represented by persons who are not attorneys.

You mean licensed or power of attorney? Licensed attorneys. I have seen individuals come in represented by persons holding their power of attorney. I've never seen a corporation, I know of no law that authorizes it, but I could have that research done in a short while. It's Nevada law that regulates the Nevada corporation's reputation. Yes, but I have Nevada law books at the office. Let's look into it. That may be something that you could try. If it doesn't fly, you always have the backup of the lawyers. One of the things we're overlooking here is that the corporation structure in the United States is of aptitude law. And so therefore, if it's aptitude law, then it's going to require an attorney.

Period. Nevada is really a maverick state. It truly is. And you may find that. But corporate structure is still, it is a birth child of the state itself. It is established by authority of state. Paul is leering in on some pretty good reasons why being based on that premise, it can establish who can represent itself in court. So I have to check it out, the corporate books and the corporate Nevada law books, which I'll do that tonight.

There may be some question, Commander, as to who birthed the corporation. So much of the IRS law applies to corporations that were birthed within territories of the federal government, not state governments. So there is a distinction between state government or state generated corporations versus federal government corporations. Which most of the entities with which we deal we think our government are really federal corporations established under United States government that is the corporate United States with a small U. What would prevent court from going into court with the power of attorney from the corporation and just testing the system? For example, if court approaches the bench on behalf of the corporation, how would the issue even come up that he's not a licensed attorney unless it's raised by someone?

That's a good question. Does the does the judge know all the licensed attorneys? How does he know that they're a licensed attorney? If he's practicing the law in front of the bar without a license, he's in trouble. Period. No. In an admiralty court. But you're in an admiralty court. You're not going to make any attempt to change it otherwise. Okay. Normally, Paul, in California, on the left-hand corner beginning with the word one, you would allege there who the plaintiff is, like Nevada, in this case Nevada corporate headquarters, and then you put in the paragraph, the sentence below that, by its attorney, the law affirms such, such, such, and such. Now Nevada does it just a little bit differently, and Nevada may be a problem, may be a state that we would be best suited to bringing this type of a common law thing in.

Once we understand the common law procedures of Mr. Miller. Especially a corporation case. Yes, especially a corporation case. That would probably be the best place to test something like this. However, we don't have time. Time is of some urgency in this matter here. We want to quash these four or five misfits before they get very far. That's true. That's a good point. So what you're saying, Jean, is the best way, in your opinion, is to go ahead as it is at the moment?

Yes. Continue under Admiralty Law. To go ahead as it is because time is of the essence. Well, can't you just get a cease and desist order against them right away without even filing a law? I can't imagine that you can't. You must be able to. You certainly can in Utah. You can get a cease and desist order without filing a complaint, but you have to file supporting documents to support it and the nature of your injunctive documents. Is that as powerful as what you were filing?

No. A verified complaint in support of your request for injunctive relief is the most powerful. That's what's being done, right? That's what's being done. But let's look at this. Now you're talking money. You're going to go to a very high-powered attorney that's worth his weight and reputation or whatever. He's going to say, well, just give me $20,000 retainer, and I charge $225 an hour. Now this is exactly what Mr. Terry Gross told the Eckers, if I come back into this case, I will ask for $20,000 retainer and you know my charges are $225 an hour and that means I will have to go here to Bakersfield and to Hatchipee and do all this stuff.

So you're in $30,000 before you blink. Is there any way that you can file these documents without an attorney, act rapidly, and if you go further, then you get your attorney? Is there any way? Is there any way? I'm asking. I'll be happy to research that tonight. Because it sure would save you a lot of money if court could have a power of attorney from of directors to do this. And it will require a resolution appointing him as a responsible, let us call it power of attorney. That's what a power of attorney should be. Now he will not want to go in there with bearer of stock and say I am the corporation. On the other hand, he could divide up and give bearer of stock and then he can get permission from the other two shareholders asking him, also giving him power of attorney.

And then they can turn all of their responses back to whoever, whatever would be their modus operandi. But I believe that if you have corporate law to protect all the mafioso, there are going to be loopholes some attorney is going to make thirty grand for one afternoon of doing Gene's work. You know, he'll take Gene's work and he'll help. Gene's found the answer as promised within five minutes. Oh God, I just am so impressed. Okie dokie. Says here, Rule 44 under Part 3 of the Nevada Rules of Court. A person may appear only in his own behalf. That's the black letter part of it. That is a dash that says, although a person is entitled to represent himself or herself in the district court, that's what we're in, no rule or statute permits a person to represent any other person, company, a trust, or any other entity in the district courts in the state of Nevada.

And it cites Salmons v. Newell, 110 Nevada, 1333. Let's look up the definition of person. A person, corporation is a person. But it also goes on and on. It says company, trust, and so on and on. Boy, you've come a long way, babies. So what we have to do, we have to look up that particular case. So now what we do, we have to go back to that particular case and find out how it arose. And perhaps it was badly argued by the attorney representing the litigants there, which I find in 99% of the things. Perhaps the pleadings were badly filed.

Perhaps there's something in that pleading that I can turn around and completely turn it around and allow a court or somebody to go into court. Question, Gene. That's who can appear in court, but what about Nevada corporate law, which I understand was changed a few years back when Delaware ceased becoming such a great deal, right? That would have nothing to do with it, Bruce. Anything in the corporate law portion of the Nevada Code itself that might give a loophole? No, the Nevada corporate law is subservient to this. Yeah. What am I missing? I heard it say a person. I heard it say a person which is a corporation can't represent a corporation. I didn't I didn't hear. I didn't hear a citizen in there.

Right. Yeah. And so if a person is defined as corporation, as Paul's been making a point of all along, then it didn't really say very much. Yeah, it's double talk. It isn't double talk to me, but I don't know. That's if you think that person means you and me. Right. Person means corporation. It's double talk. It doesn't say private citizen can't represent a corporation. Right.

And we may find that out in our research. And we may be in the right track with Miller. But right now, we're bound by this case right here he does is that this is nineteen ninety seven law will you tell me though how you can get around the fact that a corporation who can't afford an attorney for whatever reason maybe it is borderline bankruptcy or whatever that there is no way to enter a complaint of this sort sort. That's true. Where the law says that if you can afford to be a corporation, you should afford to be able to hire an attorney.

Can a corporation appeal to the court for a statute? No. What are the definitions for that for those statutes? Because one of the things I found out about law books, when they use words, they always have a definition for the word. So if you go to the definition of the word person, we'll find out. Because I know when you're talking about the IRS code, Title 28, person does not mean you or me. I know in the IRS code, it does not mean private citizen. It means a corporation or it means a corporate officer. Let's take a five minute break while Gene gets it.

It will be fine. Just like the situation I had with the Blue Tick Hound Association when I had to go through all those. I still want to know, is the blue tick hound, the hound is blue or the tick on the hound is blue? Hey, don't kick it. Hey Paul, don't kick yourself. And they're going at it fortunately I've confirmed today but if you contact the contact of me that were had close ties with these individuals they have not made any contacts with them yet what about the Secretary of State and the Attorney General it's like you know talking to the walls they won't do anything for the three months probably so they would move we'll come right back to the state of Texas as they have every other time we try to do something.

We're going to, there's a fraud squad in Las Vegas, Las Vegas Metro, we will be filing them a four-way bail. Good. So we'll get that documented too. Now are we to understand then that you're contented with that whole situation, you got it. Unless you want to come over and represent in CH he's on roll he better take him away and get him okay so you're going for a temporary restraining order are you going to use mm-hmm going with as much force as we can and make them get an attorney and go through the process how long is a temporary restraining order?

how temporary is it? 16 days 16 days? why get an attorney? yeah, temporary temporary leads to the preliminary the preliminary leads to the injunction. They do it in stages. Where do the orders to show cause come in? The judge releases you to those on the spot.

With the injunction? Yeah. And those would be in effect for either 16 or 20 days, and within that time you get yourself the preliminary injunction and then after that you get your permanent injunction. But you want to pick up all their, any copies or anything that they have, any books, records, documents, whatever they've done, you want those immediately. When is immediate in legal language? Yeah, good question. If there's some way to demand getting the computer because they will have already downloaded stuff off the desk. Right. So we want all those. We're talking part. I mean, big computers, personal computers. How could you go into their house?

Nothing would stop them from making a disk and giving you the computer and putting it on a new computer. You get them before they wouldn't stop me. Well, the information is proprietary. Then it's a use of rights and peace to go. But their checks did show up today for their new Bank of America account for Nevada Corporate Solutions. Those arrived at our offices. You're off. Oh, how nice. How nice. We'll have to be sent back to these guys. Too bad you guys aren't professional foragers. Don't miss Ron's point there. We're not dealing with professionals who have a lot of money behind them or anything like that. We're dealing with four, five, or six misfits who saw an opportunity in the office, we believe even stole some office funds, stole the office information, and now they're going to run out and they're going to set up this business.

And we think we can quash them really fast. I think so. And then move on to better. Is there some reason you can't seize the corporations? I'm not seizing them. Yeah, we can't seize the corporations. Why? Betty Tootin did. Yeah, well, it may turn out we can do something like that, Dorothy. Hostile takeover.

Betty Tootin's in court, too. Especially when they use the same address. Yeah, I mean that. I'm ashamed to see all these walls. It's shocking. We've reached a place here where we can terminate. Terminate? If there are no further objections, the court is adjourned. I have no objections.

Are there objections? The court is adjourned. I have no objections. The meeting is adjourned.

