COURT TACTICS

[VisuJulz]

Now here's an example of how to enforce your right to a fair hearing and to win your ticket in the process in the US. To make this plan work for you, you must memorise it and speak it out loud to cement it in your brain and tongue so it becomes crystal clear in your own mind and you’ll be prepared for any response. You must be clear enough that you don’t have to stop and think but must always be in control of this plan.
The first appearance you make in court is your arraignment in which the purposes for the court to present the charges and find out how you intend to react; by standing up for your rights or being fearful and an easy target. During this proceeding the judge will inform you of the charges against you in an attempt to tempt you to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If their choice is no contest which is essentially pleading guilty without admitting guilt, be careful however, because as soon as you open your mouth to enter a plea you have given him formal jurisdiction over you. If you intend to follow our procedure and win, you must not enter a plea.

The judge’s first question to you should be something to the effect of:
“Do you understand the charges against you?” Or it might be: “How do you intend to plea?”
You must say:
“No I do not understand.” Or: “I cannot enter a plea until I get some questions answered.”
The judge will probably be irritated and try to intimidate you.
You must politely state:
“I need to have some questions answered before I can enter my plea.”
Then tell him: “I do not understand the nature and cause of the action against me.”
Once the judge has agreed to answer your questions, your first question will be:
“Is this going to be a civil action, or a criminal action?”
In the highly unlikely chance that the judge answered your question by saying it is a civil action, your response will be:
“Thank you your honour, let the record reflect that this is a civil action. Your honour since this is a civil action I make a motion to dismiss for lack of a sworn complaint by an injured party and no injured party is present.”
More likely the judge will say that this is a criminal action, so you respond:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that this action against me is a criminal action. Now I have another question; your honour the constitution grants this court two different criminal jurisdictions. One is a criminal jurisdiction under the common law and the other is a criminal jurisdiction under admiralty or military tribunal venue from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the constitution. In which of these two criminal jurisdictions does this court intend to try me?"
Don’t panic if you don’t get the article, section and clause, you’ll have them down by the time you have practiced, but if you are afraid of getting it wrong it would be wise to have some brief notes with that clause number in it. If the judge gives a specific answer you will again say:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that this action against me is a criminal action under (whichever jurisdiction he replied).”
However don’t expect an easy answer to that question as you have just exposed the court’s fraud; the truth is that they’re acting under a military tribunal of which they have no right to use with you, but the judge can’t say that and he can’t say common law because if he does, you’ll make a motion to have the case dismissed because there’s no sworn complain by an injured party and no injured party present, accept it like you did if he said it was a civil action. When you protest that there is no injured party, if the judge is silly enough to say that the state of, (whatever state you’re in) is the injured party, then say:
“Your honour I make a motion that this case be dismissed, we are in the wrong court. If the state is a party to the case, they cannot also be the judge and prosecutors. This case needs to be transferred to federal court or be dismissed.”
More likely the judge will try to avoid answering and tell you to get a licensed attorney for such legal advice, your response will be:
“Thank you your honour, but I don’t think you’ll be violating your oath of office if you did your duty under the constitution. You see I’m not seeking legal advice, what I want to know is legal intent. I have the right to appear as myself in my own person without a licensed attorney and in order to intelligently defend myself I have to know the jurisdiction that this court is operating under, because the rules of criminal procedure under a common law jurisdiction are very different from the rules of criminal procedure under an admiralty or military tribunal. I need to know under which jurisdiction you intend to try me in order for me to proceed with this case. The 6th amendment grants me the right to know the jurisdiction being applied and it grants you the duty to inform me and I don’t think you’d be violating your oath of office for doing your duty, therefore will you please answer the question so this court is properly identified?”
If the judge still responds by telling you to get an attorney, you’re answer will be:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that I (your name here) the accused in this criminal action, has asked the court to divulge the nature and cause of the accusation upon the authority of the 6th amendment and that this court has failed in its duty to inform me of the nature and cause of the action. Furthermore let the record also show that this court intends to bring this action against me under a secret jurisdiction known only to licensed attorneys.”
At this point the judge might claim that this is a statutory jurisdiction under the statutes of the state of (whatever state you’re in). If he does so, you’re next statement is:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that it intends to conduct a criminal action against me under a statutory jurisdiction. But your honour that raises another question; I’ve never heard of such a thing as a criminal action under statutory jurisdiction and there’s no such jurisdiction established in the constitution. I would be happy to accept this your honour if you could please tell me where I could find the published rules of criminal procedure under a statutory jurisdiction and where this nature, cause and jurisdiction information exist. It is imperative that I have a published rules of procedure so that I may conduct a fair defence in a fair trial.”
Now keep in mind the judge made up this jurisdiction, there is no granted authority for a statutory jurisdiction and no published rules, but don’t expect him to tell you that. He must either lie, dismiss the case, or unlawfully enter a plea on your behalf. In rare cases he might even threaten you with contempt of court, if he threatens contempt say:
“Your honour, I do not wish to be held in contempt. I am simply trying to exercise my 6th amendment right that you disclose the nature and cause of the charges against me. I can provide court citations that show that the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime, please either identify the properly established jurisdiction, or I make a motion that you dismiss the case against me.”
Also unlikely but still possible is that the judge will tell the truth when you ask him in which criminal jurisdiction you were being tried and will tell you that it is an admiralty jurisdiction, if this happens you would respond:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that this court intends to proceed with a criminal action against me (your name here) as a condition of contract under an admiralty jurisdiction, as in military tribunal under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. However your honour, you must realise that you have no such jurisdiction without also having a valid international contract in dispute. I am not aware of having entered into any international contracts so I deny that such contract exists. Will you please instruct the prosecuting attorney to inform this court if there is such a contract and if so to place it into evidence and explain how I’m party to it and then compelled to perform under it? If the prosecution cannot do so your honour I make a motion that this case against me be dismissed.”
Of course if at any time your case is dismissed, make your pronouncement:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court reflect that case number bla, bla, bla against (your name here) has been dismissed.”
Now leave quietly, save your gloating for outside of the court room and if at any time you sense a good opportunity to make a motion for dismissal, make it, even if it wasn’t part of your prepared script. You need to be flexible and jump on any opportunities that are presented to you.
Let’s say that the judge has had enough of your questions and decides to help you out by entering a plea of not guilty on your behalf, immediately object:
“Your honour I object. For you to enter a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench, because entering a plea is my job, or my attorney’s job. Has the court made a judicial determination that I am now guilty?”
Now you’ve really trapped him; for him to say “Yes” he has admitted that you are not guilty, at this point state:
“Thank you your honour, let the record of this court reflect that the judge has made a judicial determination that I’m not guilty of the charges against me, therefore I make a motion that this case be dismissed because the judge has determined that I am not guilty.”
If he says “No, I have not made a judicial determination.” respond with:
“I make a motion that the plea be withdrawn and that I be allowed to enter my own plea once I know the nature and cause of the case pending against me.”
If the judge enters a plea of “No contest” object saying:
“Your honour I object. For you to enter a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench, because entering a plea is my or my attorney’s job. I make a motion that the plea be withdrawn. For you to make a judicial determination that I am entering a plea of no contest would result in the court treating me as though I had plead guilty. The court is trying to constrain me to an unfair plea choice in the absence of my understanding the nature and cause of the charges against me.”
Or let’s say that the judge instead gives you a continuance, and demands that you obtain a licensed attorney, ask:
“Has the court made a judicial determination to deny me the right to defend myself in my own person and to force me into hiring a licensed attorney that will conspire with the court to try me under a secret jurisdiction known only to the judge and to the licensed attorney?”
If you walked out of this hearing without a dismissal go to step two, pre-trial motions contained in your written packet. You should ask for a motions hearing, or you could ask to have a motions heard at the beginning of the trial. However, to ask for a motions hearing shows the judge that you are not willing to be rollovered so easily. Tell him that you must resolve some pivotal key issues in order to continue and that these motions must be heard prior to a trial. At emotions hearing you cannot be found guilty but the case can be dismissed. Either way when the motions are heard, they must each stand on their own and be heard and ruled separately from the rest, don’t just hand over five motions and let the judge say all are over-ruled, make him rule on each one individually.

Now let’s take this from the top in the manner in which it will probably happen:
JUDGE: “Do you understand the charges against you?”
YOU: “No your honour I don’t. I need you to answer a couple of questions. I need to understand the nature and cause of the charges against me. Is this case going to be heard under a civil jurisdiction or a criminal jurisdiction?”
JUDGE: “Criminal.”
YOU: “Thank you your, honour let the record of this court then show that this action against me is a criminal action. Now I have another question. Your honour the constitution grants this court two different criminal jurisdictions; one is a criminal jurisdiction under the common law and the other is a criminal jurisdiction under admiralty, or military tribunal venue from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the constitution. In which of these two criminal jurisdictions does the court intend to try me?”
JUDGE: “If you don’t understand the law you need to hire an attorney.”
YOU: “Thank you your honour but I don’t think you’d be violating your oath of office if you did your duty under the constitution. You see I am not seeking legal advice, what I want to know is legal intent. I have the right to appear as myself in my own person without a licensed attorney and in order to intelligently defend myself, I have to know under which jurisdiction that this court is operating, because the rules of criminal procedure under a common law jurisdiction are very different from the rules of criminal procedure under an admiralty, or military tribunal. I need to know under which jurisdiction you intend to try me in order for me to proceed with this case. The 6th amendment grants me the right to know the jurisdiction being applied and it grants you the duty to inform me and I don’t think you’d be violating your oath of office for doing your duty, therefore will you please answer the question so this court is properly identified.”
JUDGE: “This is a court of a statutory jurisdiction to the laws of the state of (whatever state you’re in).”
YOU: “Thank you your honour, let the record of this court then show that it intends to conduct a criminal action against me under a statutory jurisdiction. But your honour that raises another question; I have never heard of such a thing as a criminal action under a statutory jurisdiction and there’s no such reference in the constitution. I would be happy to accept this your honour if you could please tell me where I could find the published rules of criminal procedure under a statutory jurisdiction and where this nature, cause and jurisdiction information exist. It is imperative that I have the published rules of procedure so that I may conduct a fair defence in a fair trial.”
JUDGE: “Look I’m just gonna enter a plea on your behalf and set a trial date, I enter a plea of no contest.”
YOU: “Your honour I object. For you to enter a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench because offering a plea is my or my attorney’s job. For you to make a judicial determination that I am entering a plea of no contest would result in the court treating me as though I had plead guilty which I do not consent to as the court is trying to constrain me to an unfair plea choice in the absence of my understanding the nature and cause of the charges against me which. I make a motion that the plea may be withdrawn and this case be dismissed because the court has failed to identify a legitimate jurisdiction.”
JUDGE: “I deny that motion, your trial date will be (such and such a) date.”
YOU: “Your honour, I would like to request that we set a motions hearing prior to the trial date, as I must resolve some pivotal key issues in order to continue and these motions must be heard prior to the trial so that I can properly defend myself.”
And remember at emotions hearing you cannot be found guilty but the case can be dismissed. Either way when the motions are heard, they must each stand on their own and be heard and ruled separately from the rest, don’t just hand over five motions and let the judge say all are over-ruled, make him rule on each one individually.

Now this is all great for those of you from the US, but for those of you from the UK, Australia, rest of Europe, or wherever you come from, you must be wondering how does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the American constitution, or their 6th amendment help you? Which is exactly what I’m wondering too... So I'd love to hear from anyone who reckons that this tactic can still be used in other countries (especially in the UK) without the backing of the latter article & amendment, but backed by other equivalent articles and, or amendments belonging to other countries where this tactic may also be used once adapted.

[adyclegg]

nice reed

[VisuJulz]

If you liked that one you would probably love The Great ‘Penal Sum’ Court Remedy just as much if not more:

In court the government (corporation) agents need you (man/woman) to attach yourself to the strawman/artificial entity. They also need your consent to the subsequent express (written, clearly stated offers/agreements) and implied (assumed/attached/unspoken) offers of contract/agreement. They can obtain your consent in many ways such as your acquiescence (silence), answering their questions with a statement (master – slave) and allowing them to address you as the strawman/legal fiction entity. So here’s a series of questions to help you split the person (artificial entity) from you the man:

1. For and on the record sir, it is my understanding that I am a man and not an artificial person or a legal fiction; does the court possess any evidence that proves otherwise?
2. For and on the record sir, it is my understanding that I am a man and not the artificial entity and legal fiction named MR JOHN DOE; does the court possess any evidence that proves I am the artificial person and registered name MR JOHN DOE?
3. It is my understanding that I, a man commonly known as john of the doe family, am not a United Kingdom citizen; for and on the record sir, does the court possess any evidence that proves that I, the man commonly known as john of the doe family is in fact a United Kingdom citizen?
4. For and on the record sir, it is my understanding that there is no proof that shows this court has any jurisdiction over me here today; does this court have any evidence that proves this court has any jurisdiction over me here today?
5. It is my understanding that the court has no proof that shows discharging a public debt using the accepted-for-value method is invalid and unlawful; for and on the record sir, does the court possess any evidence that proves otherwise? (Only to be used if you have a good knowledge of what AFV is).
6. For and on the record sir, it is my understanding that there is no proof of a valid and lawful claim against me here today; does the court possess any evidence to show a valid and lawful claim against me here today?
7. It is my understanding that there is no evidence here today to prove that I am liable for council tax; for and on the record sir, does the court possess any evidence that proves otherwise?
8. For and on the record sir, it is my understanding that I have not caused PROFIT & LEGGIT DISTRICT COUNCIL any injury whatsoever in this matter; does the court possess any evidence that proves otherwise?
9. It is my understanding that my assistance in this matter today is now finished with; does the court possess any evidence to show otherwise?
10. For and on the record sir, I am now leaving this court under my own free will; good day to you sir.

Obviously this approach may be used for any alleged offence. If this hasn't fully worked and they do keep trying to address you as the strawman/legal fiction entity after you have clearly explained that the strawman isn’t you, simply say, “I grant you that courtesy.” This takes care of the problem and doesn’t get you into any controversy. By the way, the government agents really dislike this technique, so have fun and remember the legal world is laughable.

Now what the courts do NOT want you to know is that inside the judges/magistrates private file (the Clerk only has access to the public file which is very different) there exists a great remedy; this is called the ‘penal sum’, or some like to call it the ‘True Bill’. Now this penal sum (a sum agreed upon in a bond, to be forfeited if the condition of the bond is not fulfilled – Blacks Law 5th Edition) is basically the total outstanding amount (set by a bond) to cover the whole case on that particular day. (By the way it will also have VAT attached to it; sounds very much like a run for profit business does it not?)

Now you might believe you are in court to assist the government agents, corporative police authorities and the legal fiction strawman in say an alleged £50.00 speeding ticket, yet the penal sum amount will be much higher, and if this amount does not get settled then the strawman will receive a fine and penalty points etc as punishment for not settling the accounts in this matter. Yet if this secretive amount gets taken care of with ‘accepted for value’, then the case is terminated as no further debt/liability exists to act upon on.

By the way, the penal sum remedy works in all alleged statutory offences, not just speeding tickets etc.

Now once you have worked through creating the void between you and the strawman and have this on record, it is time to deal with the great hidden remedy matter at hand…the penal sum.

1. For and on the record sir, will you be fair, open and honest here today and assist me in assisting the court?
2. What is the penal sum for this case? (Now this will get a response that might surprise you; as your question will surprise them all! If they try to squirm on this issue, try, “For and on the record sir, are you refusing to disclose the penal sum and therefore obstructing me in attempting to settle this matter?")
3. To assist me in assisting the court, can you please hand it to me?
4. (Now your pen comes out for the - Accepted for Value, Returned for Settlement, Pre-paid Exemption # NI NUMBER, signature & date – written across the penal sum sheet)
5. For and on the record sir, I have now accepted the penal sum for value and returned it to you for settlement. It is my understanding that this action has now effected payment for the full amount regarding this case; is this not correct?
6. For and on the record sir, I require a true and full copy of the transcript of this case within the next 3 days, as well as a true copy of the accepted for value penal sum; will you make sure of these matters please?
7. It is my understanding that my assistance in this matter today is now finished with; does the court possess any evidence to show otherwise?
8. For and on the record sir, I am now leaving this court under my own free will; good day to you all.

The ‘Penal Sum’ technique is extremely powerful and therefore the government agents are not going to want to give this information up easily. Like all the questions that appear on this site, get a feel for them and make them your own. If you have to go to court then get at least two matters confident in you; splitting the artificial entity from the real man/woman, and accepting the penal sum for value.

And remember the word ‘Refusal’. If you can get on the record that they are refusing to cooperate/assist in any way, it is all going terribly wrong for them! Refusal is a big ‘NO-NO’ in commercial/admiralty courts. You are the Sponsor of the Credit on this planet and have the ability to take care of the whole case. Wake up to the remembrance of what you really are. Study why and how AFV works. Accept everything with your signature and National Insurance/Social Security Pre-Paid Account Number and most of all have fun!
This next video is a bit of a tanjent but well worth knowing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6cTB0Z ... ature=plcp

[KNOWNASchris]

Great read mate

[VisuJulz]

The follwoing video was banned from YouTube: "PAY NO TAX LEGALLY - The Biggest legal tax evasion in history"
but you can still find it here: http://www.planetxtube.com/index.php?op ... ideoshare1

[VisuJulz]

The reality of the situation is whoever makes the court claim brings the law. So if the lender/DCA takes you to court its under the consumer credit act and you can only use the defences within that statute (no contract law will help) and considering that most of us don't take the bankers to court before they do and there's frack-all chance of you winning under the consumer credit act statute, this could be an alternative approach from Marc Stevens which I am in the process of adapting so it can be used not just against the state, or the crown but bankers too, which unfortunately involves asking more questions and thus complicates his original system and increases the chances that it will not work as much as it can if you're just up against the state or the crown, there's no such thing as an impartial jury and a fair trial these days, so implicate the government and especially the queen in siding with the plaintiff (banker), for the judge works for the queen does he not...?

You: Am I entitled to be informed so I can adequately defend myself?
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/tr ... ml/005.htm Article 6 (3)a.
Judge: Yes.
You: In that case may I ask am I entitled to a fair trial?
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=56
Judge: Yes.
You: And CAN I get a fair trial if there’s a conflict of interest?
Judge: No.
You: Thank you your honour, I don’t intend to waste much more of your time, I just have a couple more questions...
Judge: You best get to it then.
You: Is it true that when a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages in both Houses, it must have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law)?

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws ... t-reading/
Judge: Yes.
You: And finally what I have here your honour is copies of section 9 of The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... ion/9/made, here’s a copy for you your honour and if you don’t mind could please confirm if my interpretation of it is correct? It says here that in case the creditor does not have in his possession the executed agreement or any copy thereof, the creditor may provide the debtor with a statement of the current terms of the agreement insofar as they are known to the creditor, (which is in effect safeguarding the creditor’s ability to collect)?
[What choice of articles to use is a work in progress that has only just began for me and so just for the purpose of getting my point across for now I picked on The Consumer Credit Regulations but that’s not the only one and quite possibly not even the bestest one yet, but as I said for now it will do so as to give you the picture.]
Judge: Yes.
After the next question things could go in various similar directions;

Direction No. 1:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: Mr. Bladibla could you please get to the point we don’t have all day...?
You: I’ve asked my by last question your honour now I’m just waiting for your answer, who do you represent?
[As Marc explained in one of his videos, most people won’t know why the judge is having difficulties giving you a simple answer but the judge knows, he understands these principles, he knows if he answers certain questions like who do you represent, he would be in effect admitting to having a conflict of interest, that’s why he tries to avoid it for at this point he knows that you pulled a fast one on him and got him in a double bind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t with his own words. Because there’s merit to what you’re saying that’s why apparently quite often he’s not gonna answer the question as it would be embarrassing to admit that he works for the same boss responsible for siding with the plaintiff/OC/DCA, so out of frustration it may be just out of pure frustration he’ll throw out the case and you’ll take that as your aim to get him to drop it has been achieved.]

Direction No. 2:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: Waffle, waffle....
You: Well it says here you represent the crown, is that true?
Judge: You’re accusing me of having a conflict of interest?
You: No sir all I’m doing is asking you to explain to me how it’s not, I’m reserving my judgement until after you’ve explained that.
or I didn't say nothing of the sort, but since you brought it up, I'm sure you're about to give me a valid explanation as to how you don't, right...?

Direction No. 3:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: Yeah but you could still get a fair trial even if there is a conflict of interest?
You: But your honour that’s not what you said a minute ago... [So now you got him contradicting himself.]

Direction No. 3:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: Well you can’t talk to me like that, bladibla... [and starts yelling and screaming]
You: Wow there...!! You just told me I was entitled to be informed, all I want is to quickly resolve this matter and go home there, what’s the problem? [So now you got him acting out of honourable characteristics.]

Direction No. 4:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: The crown, and Mr Bladibla can you please hurry this up and get to the point. [assuming he’s a dumb judge]
You: Yes your honour I just have one more question for you; HOW can I get a fair trial if there’s a conflict of interest?
Judge: For your sake I hope you’re not suggesting I’m conflicted.
You: Well look I’m not a lawyer your honour and I struggle with most of this stuff and as you said, I am entitled to be informed and all I want to understand is how if the crown favours the plaintiff would that not be a conflict of interest?

Direction No. 5:
You: Your honour, who do you represent?
Judge: The Consumer Credit Act is there to benefit both parties?
You: That's not what I'm asking your honour, and in regards to the latter that's not what you said a minute ago, but since you said I am entitled to be iformed I'm sure you will prove to me how that's so, in the meantime please answer the question, who do you represent?
Judge: If you are suggesting what I think you're suggesting stop right there or I will hold you in contempt.
You: I'm just waiting for your answer your honour, what seems to be the problem?
Judge: Right you're in contempt of court.
You: Is that civil contempt or criminal contempt, judge?
Direction No. 5a:
Judge: Criminal contempt.
You: Who makes the claim, what is the crime and who is the injured party? [Only a human can make a claim and there is no crime and no injured party, the state or the crown cannot make a claim]
Direction No. 5b:
Judge: Civil contempt.
You: Where is the contract between me and you? I don’t agree to the terms of the contract, judge.

So you’ve demonstrated the judge works for the crown which gave royal assent to this Act of parliament so that it could become law and benefit the plaintiff/banker, for even though they say the copy of the executed agreement must be a 'true copy' of the original, as confirmed in the recent case of Carey v HSBC Bank plc,7 the term 'true copy' does not mean a carbon, photocopy, microfiche copy or other exact copy of the signed credit agreement. Furthermore, Section 180(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/180 and regulation 3(2) of The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, expressly allow certain matters to be omitted from the copy and since all these acts received royal assent, it therefore begs the question: How is it not a conflict of interest? And your honour you did say I had a right to be informed... And so I’d sure like to see how any judge could inform me of how despite having already told me I can’t get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest, I could still overcome it so that I may be able to adequately defend myself... How the hell is a judge, the queen’s minion gonna stand there and tell me he’s not conflicted about the fact that his boss clearly favours the very people who I’m supposed to defend myself against when both the judge and the bankers are on the same side? Very likely with this method there will be trouble of the highest order, expect the old contempt of court threats and the likes as well as for him to perhaps even throw the case out coz after the: Who do you represent? question you’ve just exposed the judge to a very annoying situation and if it gets rough for you, you might even have grounds to change the judge and go back and file a motion to vacate.

According to Mark Stevens' technique (below is his technique, 3 questions only), you're aim is not to contradict the law cos nobody cares what your opinion of the law is, nobody gives a damn, the judge is the only acknowledged expert in the room and it doesn’t do any good for you to fight that because you’re not gonna convince anybody, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Harvard law graduate or teaching Harvard law or Cambridge, people’s perception is what counts here and their perception is the judge is the legal expert what he says, the law is (regardless of the constitution, or the common law), what that judge says today is the law, now if someone above him will disagree only then the law will change so we don’t fight that, he’s the only acknowledged expert in the room and so he’s in a very bad situation, he just wants everybody else to just pay, he wants you out of there so if you start asking questions like this and he starts getting upset, let’s say he can’t answer you, he refuses and the plaintiff is not even an OC/DCA, but the crown itself you say: Sir I’m just sitting here with a non-signed guilty plea, I just wanna plead guilty and go home, I just need to know who you’re representing here so that I can adequately defend and understand the nature of the cause, the charge of the proceeding so I can just pay your fine and go home, etc.

If it’s the crown that takes you to court you only need three questions:
Am I entitled to a fair trial?
Can I get a fair trial if there’s a conflict of interest?
Who do you represent here sir?
Because you no longer have to put the judge and the bankers in the same basket to prove that there’s a conflict of interest you suddenly have only three questions and I believe you are more likely to have the judge throw the case out, if let’s say you were in court for speeding or some shit where it’s the crown vs. you with a clearly conflicted judge because he represents the crown not you though sometimes they will try and practice law from the bench and enter a plea on your behalf which is your job not his and you know how to respond to that from the previous court tactics I already posted in this topic.

Last but not least I haven’t tried this yet so don’t think I’m talking from actual experience and don’t think of blaming me if it turns out sour for you after you’ve used this, I feel compelled to get this out there regardless for that’s what we do on this site we share and we learn through testing things out constantly and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but that’s how we learn.

[VisuJulz]

Check this out too: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 91#p101991 and this is also very useful: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 540#p97540 though not to do with court tactics in such a direct manner, but yet another reminder as to why Robert Menard is shit hot for spotting what's wrong with this world and how we can go about fighting the injustice of it all.

[stoneybroke]

nice posts good reading

[Kumbya]

Nice one Visu! I seen quite a few utube vids go those directions! Great post. Thanks