Law Classes Hosted By: Terry Bo

Our A4PURE Law Class host is a private counselor & lecturer. Over the years he has recognized the numerous injustices that occur routinely due to the ignorance of law. Terry Bo has 12 years private study & experience in these areas:
Child Support
Right to Travel
Other Civil Remedies

Service Rates

$50/hour consultation
Document preparation starting at $500 per document

For more information send an email to baldheadt@gmail.com

“These officers are bound because of the oath affirmation contract requirement at Article 6 of the federal constitution. This is where a remedy may be found when the individual officers of the municipal corporation violate the constitution while in the capacity of providing these essential governmental services.”

“However, to obtain the remedy, you must know the law and more importantly be well disposed to use it. If you do not
know how to enforce the law, the law is absolutely useless.”

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

“Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well.”

Whether the practice of law is a “right” or a “privilege” need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State’s grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. P. 239, n. 5. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/353/232.html