Handwritten note to be delivered to 42 W 44th Street this afternoon by me, Andrew Bransford Brown: 9/24/2013 RE: Andrew Bransford Brown vs. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. To Whom it May Concern: I, Andrew Bransford Brown, have determined the following: 1. the lawyers refuse to defend themselves. 2. they must be guilty or protecting the guilty (or they would counter with libel or slander). 3. The verdict is GUILTY (acting Judge is me due to "no contest" in negotiations). 4. SENTENCE/DAMAGES are $4,000.00 each. All licensed lawyers. Students excepted. 5. I am open to settlement of lesser amounts if aggregated or preventing me from the hassle of filing a lien on personal property or real estate. 6. I hereby request a membership roster in both digital & paper format to assist in collections. Failure to comply with this request may result in additional collection fees on top of the $4,000.00 each. Email addresses, names, and physical addresses at a minimum. Phone #'s also. The pain and suffering of filing 25,000 liens might be substantial. Andrew Bransford Brown
FYI, said paperwork was hand-delivered by me about 15 minutes ago to said defendants at 42 W 44th Street, NY, NY in the conference room on the right holding an arbitration conference in recess and I handed to an apparently Indian or Middle Eastern attractive lawyer in a red dress. Sincerely, Andrew Bransford Brown PS. Please remove this from "chitchat" as this is a completed lawsuit currently in collections.
FYI, for those following along.... from a legal perspective the lawyers in aggregate have admitted GUILT to all allegations in the above lawsuit. Either directly GUILTY OF or of CONSPIRACY TO STEAL/THIEVE/RAID the trust funds which might be termed the PUBLIC TRUST.
So... this is a $100,000,000 lawsuit that has completed. The lawyers have been noticed. Judge finds all NYC lawyers GUILTY and awards damages of $100 million to Andrew Bransford Brown. Collections will ensue.
When a lawyer says "the case has no merit" in response to defending a lawsuit where he is the Defendant, in essence that means he/she has a legal opinion and that is his judgement. That does not mean he is correct. A defendant cannot be his own judge. When a lawyer says he/she does not want to give "credence to the claim" in defensive of a lawsuit, it means he/she is "pleading the fifth" amendment and does not want to incriminate themselves. The first is an appeal to his/her authority as the expert. The second is the common use of "pleading the 5th" and not wanting to say anything that can be used against him/her. This could be due to guilt OR not knowing how to respond to the assertion or allegation. If that occurs, simply ask for a moment to confer or more time if research is required. A 30 day continuance is ridiculous if it is simply a 5 minute iPhone lookup to reference some law text. But that is a separate subject. Talking or responding to the claimant or plaintiff with the grievance is usually NOT giving "credence to the claim". To cite a recent precedent, in the case between Andrew Bransford Brown vs. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, both uses of the above were essentially "pleading the 5th" to avoid a GUILTY verdict or a CONSPIRACY TO hide the GUILTY. It was NOT due to a lack of legal knowledge or the need to consult. It was a refusal to accept the possibility of General Counsel's possibility he was wrong. In the above mentioned case, a summons was issued over email after in-person notice was given. The summons was to schedule a meeting to discuss where the next meeting was to occur. This initial meeting was simply to locate a representative agreeable to both parties, a venue agreeable to both parties, and the possible need for a judge that was agreeable to both parties. In the Plaintiff's assertions, the venue selected by the Defendant was filled with Defendants. The judge(s) selected by the Defendant were all Defendants themselves (or at a minimum were in the same "club" as the Defendant). So, in the Defendant's failure to appear to the summons, the Plaintiff was forced to be his own acting judge. That was the reason behind the Judge's very conservative ruling.
Legally, all lawyers have been found GUILTY of trust fund theft and enforcing clauses in trust funds that included people (slaves) as part of the property to be conveyed. That is illegal in this jurisdiction. People cannot be transferred as "property" in the United States or New York. That does not necessarily mean that every lawyer actually did this. The $4,000 is a slap on the wrist to force the lawyers to clean up house internally. Some lawyers ARE physically guilty. This civil precedent can be pursued criminally if they do not settle civilly.
It is Friday the 27th of September 2013 today. The due date for the lawyers to pay me $4,000 is the end of business today (5pm EST). If they do not settle with me today in person with valid consideration, an 8% late fee penalty will be applied to the principal balance.
Also note, since they have been proven GUILTY legally, a smart prosecutor can now bring CRIMINAL charges against them for slave trading and grand theft trust (conveying humans as property within trust funds and hiding it).