, Appears as: Sui Juris
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION
FAMILY PART
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff,
vs.
,
Aggrieved Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DYFS Case No:
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
I, , sui juris, hereafter "Affiant", having first hand knowledge of the facts stated herein, and being competent in mind and body to testify, declares and affirms that the facts stated herein are true, correct, and complete in all material fact, not misrepresented and made under the penalties of perjury of the laws of The United States of America and The State of New Jersey.
WHEREAS DYFS violated Affiants rights in the routine performance of their duties by asserting their “rights” to custody of my son who belongs to no one but his Mother and I, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Fourth Amendment, and
WHEREAS DYFS violated Affiants rights in the routine performance of their duties by holding me accountable for child abuse or neglect without the presentment of an indictment by a Grand Jury and further compelling me to bear witness against myself, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Fifth Amendment, and
WHEREAS DYFS violated the rights of Affiant in the routine performance of their duties by denying me the right to a fair, public and speedy trial by a jury of my peers and further denying me my right to confront witnesses against me, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Sixth Amendment, and
WHEREAS DYFS violated Affiants rights in the routine performance of their duties by removing custody of my son from me and subjecting me to unreasonable standards for the return of my son, and
Continued next post.
Affidavit I used to put DYFS in their place.
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
Affidavit I used to put DYFS in their place.
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
Affidavit continued.
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Eighth Amendment, and
WHEREAS DYFS violated Affiants rights in the routine performance of their duties by setting work standards and subjecting me to the terms of involuntary servitude, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Thirteenth Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any claim made by DYFS to which relief can be granted, and
WHEREAS DYFS has not offered any evidence or material fact to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or through a preponderance of the evidence why DYFS should have custody of my son, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any evidence or material fact which authorized DYFS to remove custody of my son from me, and
WHEREAS denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the United States. [See definitions of "United States", "State", and "citizen" at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” & “State” at 26 U.S.C. subsections 7701(a)(9) & (10)] [Citizen spelled with a capital “C” in the Constitution for the united States of America and first 10 Amendments refers to a natural born State Citizen with unalienable “Rights”. Whereas, citizen spelled with a lower case “c” in the 11th amendment and later refers to a citizen of the United States with government granted immunities and privileges, a citizen void of any unalienable “Rights” and Constitutional “Rights” as found in the Constitution for the united States of America.] and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the United States of America a corporate entity owned by the United States, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”. [The “State of New Jersey is an incorporated federal “State”, a “political subdivision of the U.S.” created by the 1940 Buck Act. The 10th Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine prohibits the state “Republics” from acquiescing to federal authority, thereby functioning as federal States, without constitutional amendment which specifically delegates authority to the United States which is not already articulated in the “Constitution for the united States of America” see New York v. United States, et all, 1992], and
Continued next post....
WHEREAS DYFS violated Affiants rights in the routine performance of their duties by setting work standards and subjecting me to the terms of involuntary servitude, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any material fact or evidence which demonstrates that DYFS can abrogate the Thirteenth Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any claim made by DYFS to which relief can be granted, and
WHEREAS DYFS has not offered any evidence or material fact to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or through a preponderance of the evidence why DYFS should have custody of my son, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any evidence or material fact which authorized DYFS to remove custody of my son from me, and
WHEREAS denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the United States. [See definitions of "United States", "State", and "citizen" at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” & “State” at 26 U.S.C. subsections 7701(a)(9) & (10)] [Citizen spelled with a capital “C” in the Constitution for the united States of America and first 10 Amendments refers to a natural born State Citizen with unalienable “Rights”. Whereas, citizen spelled with a lower case “c” in the 11th amendment and later refers to a citizen of the United States with government granted immunities and privileges, a citizen void of any unalienable “Rights” and Constitutional “Rights” as found in the Constitution for the united States of America.] and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the United States of America a corporate entity owned by the United States, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”. [The “State of New Jersey is an incorporated federal “State”, a “political subdivision of the U.S.” created by the 1940 Buck Act. The 10th Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine prohibits the state “Republics” from acquiescing to federal authority, thereby functioning as federal States, without constitutional amendment which specifically delegates authority to the United States which is not already articulated in the “Constitution for the united States of America” see New York v. United States, et all, 1992], and
Continued next post....
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
Affidavit continued.
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “citizen” of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” or the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”. [Not to be confused with the Union of States the parties to the Constitution originally known as the united States of America, established in the Articles of Confederation] [See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 40 Stat. 1015, c. 194], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a "United States citizen living abroad" as defined in 26 U.S.C., and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is subject to the “UNITED STATES” or “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES”. [See definitions of "United States" and "State" at 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) and 26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” & “State” at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9)&(10); see also U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, nor the Northern Mariana Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” or the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to a state of the Union, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the “UNITED STATES”, and
Continued next post....
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a "United States citizen living abroad" as defined in 26 U.S.C., and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is subject to the “UNITED STATES” or “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES”. [See definitions of "United States" and "State" at 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) and 26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” & “State” at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9)&(10); see also U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, nor the Northern Mariana Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident” of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” or the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to a state of the Union, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the “UNITED STATES”, and
Continued next post....
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
Continued....
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the “STATE OF NEW JERSEY”, and
WHEREAS Affiant is not electing to be treated as a resident of the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, nor the Northern Mariana Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”. [26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(4) and 26 CFR 1.871], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a partnership, corporation, estate, fiduciary or trust as defined by 26 U.S.C., and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a 14th Amendment citizen, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document which verifies Affiant is “subject to” nor dependent on the “quasi contractual ”or” adhesion contract social insurance trust / charitable trust / constructive trust created by the 14th Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a constructive beneficiary of the 14th amendment public/private trust, and
WHEREAS Affiant is denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is “subject to” the “public debt” the 14th Amendment established. Affiant “Rights” do not come from the 14th Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant does not elect to convey property to the 14th amendment public/private trust, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “privileged entity” such as a resident alien, corporation, partnership, trust, or estate, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document which verifies Affiant is living within a “federal territory”, “federal enclave”, “federal area”, “federal district”, “within this State”, “In this state”, “in the State” or within a federal “State” over which the [Federal] “United States” has been (1) ceded jurisdiction by the “Constitution for the united States of America” article 1, section 8, clause17, or (2) federal reservation of jurisdiction when the Republic of New Jersey become a state of the Union, or (3) the Republic of New Jersey ceded the land and jurisdiction to the Federal government under Article IV, section 3, clause 2. [“federal area” 4 U.S.C. § 110(e), definition of “States” 4 U.S.C. § 103 & 110(d)] [The Federal Reserve districts and the Internal Revenue Districts are "new states," which have been established within the jurisdiction of legal states of the Union. See Constitution for the united States of America Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”.] [see Fort Leavenworth R. R. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525; “…Legislature of a State has no power to cede away her jurisdiction and legislative power over any portion of her territory, except as such cession follows under the Constitution from her consent to a purchase by the United States…”], and
I know it's long be patient.....
Continued....
WHEREAS Affiant is not electing to be treated as a resident of the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, nor the Northern Mariana Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area” or “federal district”. [26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(4) and 26 CFR 1.871], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a partnership, corporation, estate, fiduciary or trust as defined by 26 U.S.C., and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a 14th Amendment citizen, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document which verifies Affiant is “subject to” nor dependent on the “quasi contractual ”or” adhesion contract social insurance trust / charitable trust / constructive trust created by the 14th Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a constructive beneficiary of the 14th amendment public/private trust, and
WHEREAS Affiant is denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is “subject to” the “public debt” the 14th Amendment established. Affiant “Rights” do not come from the 14th Amendment, and
WHEREAS Affiant does not elect to convey property to the 14th amendment public/private trust, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “privileged entity” such as a resident alien, corporation, partnership, trust, or estate, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document which verifies Affiant is living within a “federal territory”, “federal enclave”, “federal area”, “federal district”, “within this State”, “In this state”, “in the State” or within a federal “State” over which the [Federal] “United States” has been (1) ceded jurisdiction by the “Constitution for the united States of America” article 1, section 8, clause17, or (2) federal reservation of jurisdiction when the Republic of New Jersey become a state of the Union, or (3) the Republic of New Jersey ceded the land and jurisdiction to the Federal government under Article IV, section 3, clause 2. [“federal area” 4 U.S.C. § 110(e), definition of “States” 4 U.S.C. § 103 & 110(d)] [The Federal Reserve districts and the Internal Revenue Districts are "new states," which have been established within the jurisdiction of legal states of the Union. See Constitution for the united States of America Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”.] [see Fort Leavenworth R. R. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525; “…Legislature of a State has no power to cede away her jurisdiction and legislative power over any portion of her territory, except as such cession follows under the Constitution from her consent to a purchase by the United States…”], and
I know it's long be patient.....
Continued....
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
COntinued....
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “person” as used within 26 U.S.C. [maxim - Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis ‘man’ is a term of nature; ‘person’ is a term of civil law .] [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “PERSON” Term may include artificial beings, as corporations .… relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 254. A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is a legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes.], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is an “individual” as used within 26 U.S.C. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “INDIVIDUAL” As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association: but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant holds the legislatively created office of “person” or “individual” within the government, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “juristic entity”, “resident agent”, “corporate entity”, “individual entity”, “property”, “franchisee of the federal government”, “bankrupt person”, "human resource", "institutional unit”, ”private enterprise”, “private law merchant”, “employee”, “employer”, “withholding agent”, “government employee”, “constructive trustee”, “implied trust”, “private charitable trust”, “disenfranchised entity”, “enfranchised entity”, “incompetent”, “civilly dead”, “surety for any fiction”, “guarantor for any fiction”, or any other commercial label, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant was created by the “United States”, any government created trust, or any government/corporate entity, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is “subject to” the “United States”, any government created trust, or any government/corporate entity, and
Continued next post....
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is an “individual” as used within 26 U.S.C. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “INDIVIDUAL” As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association: but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto], and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant holds the legislatively created office of “person” or “individual” within the government, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is a “juristic entity”, “resident agent”, “corporate entity”, “individual entity”, “property”, “franchisee of the federal government”, “bankrupt person”, "human resource", "institutional unit”, ”private enterprise”, “private law merchant”, “employee”, “employer”, “withholding agent”, “government employee”, “constructive trustee”, “implied trust”, “private charitable trust”, “disenfranchised entity”, “enfranchised entity”, “incompetent”, “civilly dead”, “surety for any fiction”, “guarantor for any fiction”, or any other commercial label, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant was created by the “United States”, any government created trust, or any government/corporate entity, and
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is “subject to” the “United States”, any government created trust, or any government/corporate entity, and
Continued next post....
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
Last page, I promise......
WHEREAS Affiant denies the existence of any document that verifies Affiant is “subject to” the federal governments powers arising from the “Constitution for the united States of America(1787)” Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Further Affiant saith naught.
Subscribed and affirmed in , State of New Jersey, on this th day of July in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, Two Thousand and Six.
Affiant, ______________________________________
(Signature)
If not rebutted within 15 DAYS by lawful evidence to the contrary, this affidavit is at law evidence that the court has not joined the true party of interest and a default exists. Failure to present evidence to the contrary of the Affiants testimony, will be evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts herein as true, correct and complete.
Wherefore the court should dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to join an indispensable party as such relieves the court of jurisdiction over the parties.
I reserve all my rights under the common law and do not voluntarily waive any rights.
Submitted this th day of July, 2006.
I, certify that I have served the Office of Prosecuting Attorney a true and correct copy of this Affidavit this th day of July, 2006 by leaving a copy with the Clerk, also filing a copy of said legal document with the Court Clerk and DYFS by certified mail on the above specified date.
Affiant, ________________________
Further Affiant saith naught.
Subscribed and affirmed in , State of New Jersey, on this th day of July in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, Two Thousand and Six.
Affiant, ______________________________________
(Signature)
If not rebutted within 15 DAYS by lawful evidence to the contrary, this affidavit is at law evidence that the court has not joined the true party of interest and a default exists. Failure to present evidence to the contrary of the Affiants testimony, will be evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts herein as true, correct and complete.
Wherefore the court should dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to join an indispensable party as such relieves the court of jurisdiction over the parties.
I reserve all my rights under the common law and do not voluntarily waive any rights.
Submitted this th day of July, 2006.
I, certify that I have served the Office of Prosecuting Attorney a true and correct copy of this Affidavit this th day of July, 2006 by leaving a copy with the Clerk, also filing a copy of said legal document with the Court Clerk and DYFS by certified mail on the above specified date.
Affiant, ________________________
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked well for over two hundred years and we're not using it anymore." George Carlin
Court Rules
Everything you wrote seems to be perfectly proper and in conformance with Court Rules. To people reading it, it may seem far out, but I have seen something similar in an unrelated situation.
Court Rules
Virginia Supreme Court Rules
General Provisions as to Pleadings
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... r+vscr-1Z4
§ vscr-1:4
General Provisions as to Pleadings.
(a) Counsel tendering a pleading gives his assurance as an officer of the court that it is filed in good faith and not for delay.
(b) A pleading that is sworn to is an affidavit for all purposes for which an affidavit is required or permitted.
(c) Counsel or an unrepresented party who files a pleading shall sign it and state his address.
(d) Every pleading shall state the facts on which the party relies in numbered paragraphs, and it shall be sufficient if it clearly informs the opposite party of the true nature of the claim or defense.
(e) An allegation of fact in a pleading that is not denied by the adverse party's pleading, when the adverse party is required by these Rules to file such pleading, is deemed to be admitted. An allegation in a pleading that the party does not know whether a fact exists shall be treated as a denial that the fact exists.
(f) Requirements of pleadings applicable to instruments not under seal shall apply to instruments under seal.
(g) Requirements of pleadings applicable to legal defenses shall apply to equitable defenses.
(h) The clerk shall note and attest the filing date on every pleading.
(i) The mention in a pleading of an accompanying exhibit shall, of itself and without more, make such exhibit a part of the pleading.
(j) Brevity is enjoined as the outstanding characteristic of good pleading. In any pleading a simple statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the essential facts is sufficient.
(k) A party asserting either a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or a defense may plead alternative facts and theories of recovery against alternative parties, provided that such claims, defenses, or demands for relief so joined arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds.
( l ) Every pleading, motion or other paper served or filed shall contain at the foot the office address and telephone number of the counsel of record submitting it, along with any facsimile number regularly used for business purposes by such counsel of record.
- - - - - - - -
I have seen a similar affidavit, where the wording went like this:
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 1
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 2
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 3
I think it was pretty ingenious of you to deny "jurisdiction of the court."
I started working on a similar nit-picking affidavit for Standing Up's Case, which I posted under 'CPS Investigations section.' The statements derived directly from the CPS Policy Manual.
In a case by the Attorney General, I think in Tennessee, against a Termite company, they used the term "failed to do this" "failed to do that."
Court Rules
Virginia Supreme Court Rules
General Provisions as to Pleadings
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... r+vscr-1Z4
§ vscr-1:4
General Provisions as to Pleadings.
(a) Counsel tendering a pleading gives his assurance as an officer of the court that it is filed in good faith and not for delay.
(b) A pleading that is sworn to is an affidavit for all purposes for which an affidavit is required or permitted.
(c) Counsel or an unrepresented party who files a pleading shall sign it and state his address.
(d) Every pleading shall state the facts on which the party relies in numbered paragraphs, and it shall be sufficient if it clearly informs the opposite party of the true nature of the claim or defense.
(e) An allegation of fact in a pleading that is not denied by the adverse party's pleading, when the adverse party is required by these Rules to file such pleading, is deemed to be admitted. An allegation in a pleading that the party does not know whether a fact exists shall be treated as a denial that the fact exists.
(f) Requirements of pleadings applicable to instruments not under seal shall apply to instruments under seal.
(g) Requirements of pleadings applicable to legal defenses shall apply to equitable defenses.
(h) The clerk shall note and attest the filing date on every pleading.
(i) The mention in a pleading of an accompanying exhibit shall, of itself and without more, make such exhibit a part of the pleading.
(j) Brevity is enjoined as the outstanding characteristic of good pleading. In any pleading a simple statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the essential facts is sufficient.
(k) A party asserting either a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or a defense may plead alternative facts and theories of recovery against alternative parties, provided that such claims, defenses, or demands for relief so joined arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds.
( l ) Every pleading, motion or other paper served or filed shall contain at the foot the office address and telephone number of the counsel of record submitting it, along with any facsimile number regularly used for business purposes by such counsel of record.
- - - - - - - -
I have seen a similar affidavit, where the wording went like this:
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 1
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 2
We have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny -- allegation # 3
I think it was pretty ingenious of you to deny "jurisdiction of the court."
I started working on a similar nit-picking affidavit for Standing Up's Case, which I posted under 'CPS Investigations section.' The statements derived directly from the CPS Policy Manual.
In a case by the Attorney General, I think in Tennessee, against a Termite company, they used the term "failed to do this" "failed to do that."
Return to “CPS Investigations”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests