« Spontaneous Scale | Main | The Creation of the Copy »

May 11, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d835495f9769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference From the Mercantilist World to Market-Based Liberalism: Money as a Constitutional Medium:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joan A. Conway

I like this subject.

Joan A. Conway

I like this subject.

Joan A. Conway

But I am blocked from reading or hearing about it at the public library, since I don't have the appropriate wand just yet. Is there any other way to read about this subject that I would be interested in studying under the history of capitalism, and its forerunners.

Joan A. Conway,

I have read about our history concerning Greenbacks and other local currency, such as Dixies, or the Ten Dollar Bill, out of Louisiana. The uncertainty of receiving the value of such dollars and the scams and frauds perpetrated on the Americans by the Federal Administration, as well as State Administration. I have described this sentiment when I took on Governor Blagovejich's selling ISAC loans recently without legislative approval as intentional interference and fraudulent inducement in an economic advantage of student loans, under flaws in the Guarantee Student Loan Program Promissory notes and disclosure statements: void and voidable contracts - unconscienable debt: no defense clauses against school misconduct, or governor misconduct,and no choice of state law, etc.

After I finish my current readings, I will take on Higher Education and have a better handle on how to do the impossible - get out of student loans as a defaulted student loan borrower. Hopefully I live long enough for this, needing a left hip (degenerated Osteo Arthritis) and all in my future. But if I see some justice soon in my first case, under Title VII, ADEA, and Public Employee Act, I'll hire a successor. God Knows Best.

Joan A. Conway, Beyond My Control.

I cannot remove the Seventh Circuit block with Sanctions until the date of May 25, 2008, if they don't act sooner. This is of course a very, very, very sore spot with me since I have moved heaven and earth to do so risking my life as well. Without the Court's cooperation, I am dying in poverty. Screener: Please don't bring this blog to my attention anymore as it hurts a lot!

Joan a. Conway, Appeal Lower Court Restrictions in the Appeal of In Re: Joan A. Conway vs. the Execu

"The Seventh Circuit, as an arm of the United States, is not subject to suit at all unless Congress has explicit- ly waived immunity. United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 500-01 (1940) ("[W]ithout specific statutory consent, no suit may be brought against the United States. No officer by his action can confer jurisdiction. Even when suits are authorized they must be brought in designated courts."). The only possible basis for a contention that immunity has been waived is that Mack's complaint somehow states a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would raise a federal question subject to removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1441."

I stated a cause of action under Article III, having standing, and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 Prison Reform Litigation Act, and Self-Defense, but I don't believe I did under Federal Tort Claims Act.

I will read more about this in the coming months. Thanks!

Joan A. Conway

Thanks for the reminder.

I have dropped this for the time being.

I have just read a book on Arthritis, and many pamphlets concerning surgery.

I have a small claims lawsuit on "teeming" credit purchases against "Annie Sez," also known to some as "Big M, Inc."

But their receipts doesn't reflect the dual identity that their stationery does.

It appears one automatic receipt is delayed, and another manual receipt is initiated by the New Jersey firm.

The automatic receipt is Central Day Light Time, and manual receipt is Eastern Day Light Time.

The difference otherwise is a few seconds.

This, wire fraud, has crossed interstate commerce, because double-billing occurred on December 26, 2006, to make annual figures on unsuspected customers charge accounts.

I caught it because store personnel were singing and dancing about another matter at the time that alerted me to the fact something was amiss.

I find this difficult to do, since I can bearing walk now.

But after surgery, and rehabilitation I am on the case or case(s) in my case!

Joan A. Conway

I have filed the small claim case; although I have drafted many claims under various themes with the state court to change the direction of the company's credit transaction policies, and its "careless management."

The company has, in its way, admitted that it had "careless management" in its Chicago store and has since moved out of Chicago.

The three defendant(s) want to settle, but of course they dislike paying for attorney fees, para legal fees, costs, and the waived fees poor person fees that the court may chargeable.

I believe they will eventually honor the small claim and settle, but they have said in a threatening way that they will file a counter-claim for a False Claim action. I wish they would, because I have all of those other drafted claims ready to go forward if the lawsuit becomes adverse to me.

I have a real handle on the allegedly company's fiscal policy to pull reluctant Associates across their finish line for making the year-end bonus, better known as a State Fiscal Policy in the tax world.

I have drafted this under at least five different claims, but of course this would be a over-kill if the defendant(s) cooperate and settle, unless something bigger is at stake here, like an injunction to get them to change their receipt(s) in their stores: Annie Sez, Mandee, and Afaze -- reflecting the operator, Big M, Inc., as controlling the firms savings and pricing codes and credit transactions and management information systems, under its obligatory credit contract(s).

More than one customer has been caught by the teeming of charge(s) on their credit accounts, but in my case, the block prevented it from going through.

Then there was the cut-off from one billing cycle to the next billing cycle demonstrating the block and its cut-off test on my monthly statement showing interest payable.

And along with long distance telephone calls to Elgin, Illinois, I struggled to get the block removed by the credit card company, who reluctantly, of course, sees it both ways by different department(s).

The evidence establishes the fiscal policy business practice that manually keyes in the credit transaction after the customer's card is automatically swiped. This pushes aside the automatic swipe resulting in two swipes seconds apart, but in two different time zones, Central and Atlantic.

Electronic money is fungible! Cut-off tests are important and have meaning to the customer's monthly billing cycle.

Joan A. Conway, We're in the money!

734 ILCS 5/2-619 (f) Affidavit was neither signed nor sworn to in my Small Claims Complaint with Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanction(s) against the Defendant(s).

My Objections and/or Response to Motion to Dismiss, and my Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 Petition for Sanctions will be filed 11/27/07, under a breach of contract, Chase's right to reject based on suspected fraudulent activities, or "teeming" of authorizations in a credit/sale purchase, that blocked my account and put transaction into the next billing cycle, mismatched with the day the goods were dispatched.

Sorry to hear about the recent shooting of a classmate and PhD. candidate. This is truely a great loss of a great young man. My condolences to his family and friends and to the University facing trouble in its own backyard of Hyde Park.

Joan A. Conway,

Are you using your intuit with that extension of a name?

That is what the Judge said to me at about 10:00 A.M. today. The 'then' means 2 P.M. at the motion call.

One is never happy to lose a Small Claim case, after the many hours spent with the Attorney General investigating the complaint, which did not lead to a settlement from $25, to $100, to $782.05. Now I am seeking a lot more. But it will be a 'good thing' to unload this legal issue before the Holidays one way or another.

My confidence is always low with my new surroundings. A State Court is never like a Federal Courtroom. State Court's have the power of intimidation on their side, and a packed courtroom to boot.

By now I don't really care; I just want to get some rest, exercise, and lose the few pounds I put on from my recent operation to remove a benign tumor on my right deltoid muscle 20 days ago. During this period of time a drafted and prepared 200 pages of litigation and made many copies of my complaint for Alias Summons, and Motion to Dismiss and Petition for Sanctions pleaded against me unjustly!

But it is the fun of the investigation for me and acquiring a full understanding of the cut-off tests, and the dispatched goods from stock, without the acknowledgement of any authorization of a credit charge, due to a blocked account because of teeming the authorization(s), which Chase rejected as suspected of fraudulent activities per their Cardmember Agreement with their charge card holder and the Merchant. Further, I had to hone my understanding of what a family-owned and closed business is like with a family of decedents running the busines and one dominant, but retired party, who was the incorporator of a recent subsidiary. All of this is very fascinating and studying Business Associations helped to uncover the fact that the dominant party is more than just an investor, he wants to have a say in the way things go! I love the research of the violation, its implications, and what was going on. The plumbing of the case with all its complexities is what I like best about the law.

Joan A. Conway,

A day in the life of a Pro Se Litigant in a Small Claims Court in Circuit Court Cook County, Illinois:

Well as I sort of guessed, when the judge said, "Well take care of all of it then!" meant he would grant the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a cause of action.

Back to the drawing board and read about Contract Law, in regards to the third element, Defendants' breach of contract, and maybe back to the courtroom with my other claims (perhaps of Negligence, Intentional Interference, Fraud, and Deceptive Practices).

However, I may have to pull in the credit card company, who fostered the Fraud Alert and blocked account, when Defendants' shifted the risk of the charge transaction(s) onto the purchaser, when the Defendants' dispatched the goods to her, and tried to authorize two transactions on the same day, but-for the block and fraud alert initiated by the Credit Card Company in their favor, which mismatched their automatic authorization three days later to a different billing cycle, and their manual authorization was not allowed to go through the card member system.

Somehow the Judge didn't think I made my case as described above. Whaa?

Maybe the missing on-line summary account page of a double entry is the only proof he would accept without the Negligence claim against the Credit Card Company, as disregarding my request for the evidence three days later (In "my concerns' letter to the executive office with a copy of the receipt.)

I did have the fraud letter from Chase, and the executive office's response, not acknowledging the fraud alert and blocked account a few days earlier, but somehow that was not sufficient for the Judge.

No, it wasn't that I didn't show the Judge the evidence. However, that would have helped me too!

I missed the element of prima facie on a more intellectual level.

The Defendants' attorney didn't have a clue and tried to Sanction me.

The Judge,leaning forward, gave him an intense " no." Can't say I thought he was partial.

But the cost of this litigation has moved it out of a Small Claims Court.

So, I suffered a costly defeat in a Small Claims Court by the "not so happy to see me" Your honor, Judge Dennis Michael McGuire.

Further, he didn't advance the case with why I lost the claim. He remained silent after he said I didn't make my cause of action.

He only responded to my question that I didn't make my prima facie elements in his opinion.

Not to appeal, that was the question immediately after losing the case.

I need surgery soon, and this would not be wise without catching why I went astray. I would then be sanctioned.

I still like myself! And I wasn't hostile either.

The Daley Law Library librarian had his own agenda too.

He was steering me into an appeal, and refuse to mention refile, and diffently not steering me to refile.

I thought the librarian was controlling and evasive with 'res judicata.'

My case did not go to trial nor have a jury.

My case lost on a Motion to Dismiss for not providing a cause of action.

My feelings are to anyone reading this is blog are to remain independent of all law librarian(s).

Although their knowledge is substantial, they are not in the front lines of a dispute in a courtroom; they also play adverse party to your claim, and oppress you to follow their course of action that is not always a sage nor a wise decision.

I have found them to be not sage or wise with my eviction proceedings in the past to my detriment.

Some librarians are partial state employees, and they intentionally interfere with the Pro Se's process, for uniformity in outcome, or bias toward the other party, because they are, shall I dare say it, jealous.

Learn not to trust anyone but your own hard earned research and deliberate thought process. If the Judge still doesn't see it your way, try to see it his way, and maybe your error(s) will surface.

Let a few days go by, and then size up your case.

Do you want to continue?

Are there other fish to fry?

You have possibly a two year statute of limitations and before next year you perhaps have made the required element after your labor.

And in addition, if the third party is a necessary party, you'll sue the credit card company as well.

This dialogue is volunteered for the advancement of Pro Se justice in the United States. If it sounds particularly biased toward any occupation, such as law librarians, realize they can't give legal advice, but they do intentionally steer with their choice of literature they offer for you to read, when you present them with the issue you wish to research. Take it with a grain of salt and not the final word. They possess intuit, not sage or wisdom.

Another errant knight's journey into the field of law.

Martin Haworth

Truth is that money talks, whatever we might wish for.

Only when the world goes nuclear and we are all living like in 'The Day After Tomorrow' style (and even then we might be as well!), can we get back to basics.

Big challenge.

Martin

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.