Defend yourself in court against the real criminals
Obviously nothing on this page is going to be legal advice because not only am I NOT A LAWYER but i don't believe in involuntary hierarchies of humans which is precisely what "law" is.
What this article covers are some of the things i picked up in Marc Stevens 'No State Project' courtroom role play group where i spent nearly 2 years learning and applying these in courtroom role play scenarios that groups of people continually participate in.
During my time there I began transcribing court room recording for people which helped a great deal with pin pointing a judges tactic - their attempt at getting you to consent to being ruled over via legalese and intimidation.
Something everyone must realize before proceeding is that the courts are backed by the largest terrorist organization in the world... The U.S. government and they can literally do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO YOU.
It is good practice to be accompanied to court by at least 2 others who are capable of at least getting audio of the hearing because it will be the judges words in most cases that get the judge backed into a corner. If you don't have your own recordings you are leaving the evidence is strictly the hands of the humans attempting to prosecute you - I'm sure you can see how that wouldn't be in your best interest.
Learn how to defend yourself from victimless non crimes.
Whether or not there is a valid cause of action, whether or not there are credible witnesses that are unbiased to the state, and whether or not I am able to receive a fair trial (which is never). Challenge: Jurisdiction, Corpus Delicti. Remain respectful, act innocent, and seem timid yet assertive. If you're unfortunate to have gotten a traffic ticket or citation, keep the following tips in mind, your chances of getting it kicked out are much greater: Do not be argumentative. Traffic courts are scams run by people only interested in taking your money. They are not in place to administer justice. Being argumentative only ensures you will be separated from your money. Going in thinking justice is being administered is to start off on the wrong foot. Any traffic court judge interested in administering justice would throw out the majority of traffic tickets within minutes of them being filed by the police and mail an apology to each defendant for their time wasted on the traffic stop. Don’t bring your own opinion or arguments to convince the judge. Traffic court judges don’t care what we think, except of course what we think is the easiest and fastest way to pay the court fine. We are considered guilty the moment the cop decides to write the ticket. Traffic court is about making it look good and the judge is always going to be perceived as correct and you wrong. After all, he’s the judge. But, we can get the judge to contradict himself. If an argument or opinion is used, it should always be the judge’s. Stick to the facts. Sticking to the facts is the fastest and most effective way to demonstrate there is no case. Just asking a couple of questions is usually enough to have the only witness against you declared incompetent, which requires his testimony, including the ticket, to be stricken. Keep in mind that impeaching the only witness does not mean a judge will strike the testimony and throw the ticket out. Repeat I am not an attorney I don’t understand. All non-lawyers are legally incapable of defending themselves and it is unfair to put someone on trial who does not understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against them. The more the judge explains what is going on, the more can be used to make him contradict himself and prove there is no case. Don’t object and press a particular point more than twice. This is related to number one. If I keep pressing a point, the judge is only going to get angry, and judges are notorious for having anger management problems. Remember, traffic court judges do not care. One thing they care about is making the robbery look good. Don’t help him make it look good. Stay on point. Lawyers, with and without those flowing black robes, are masters of diversion. Never forget their goal is not getting to the truth and administering justice, it’s about getting the money you worked hard to earn. If they get you off-point, they win; your attention on the real issues is gone, and before you know it, the proceeding is over. Only accept responsive answers to questions. Only accepting responsive answers keeps things on point and works to destroy the appearance of a case. Beware though, know in advance what is responsive to the question. Bureaucrats are very good at giving what may appear to be responsive answers; they may sound good, but they are not responsive. A good example is “Factually, what is the Constitution?” and the bureaucrat answers with: “It’s the supreme law of the land.” It sounds impressive, but it’s not responsive to the question. A responsive answer is devastating to a bureaucrat’s case. Defend Yourself against Government Defend Yourself against victimless non-crimes Ask questions. One tactic judges, lawyers and bureaucrats use to divert attention away from what they are doing is to accuse people of “arguing.”
This is an attempt to make anyone in court look bad - as if we’re the problem and not the traffic court. By just asking questions, we can point out we are not arguing, just asking questions.
This is very embarrassing for the individual accusing you of arguing. Asking questions is also incredibly effective at demonstrating there is no case, provided, we stay on point and only accept responsive answers. Get judge and, or the prosecutor to commit to positions. Traffic court judges do not care if you think they have violated the Constitution or the law. Their main job is to make robbing people look good, because of this traffic court judges do not like to contradict themselves. Ask questions to get the judge to commit to certain positions e.g., “Am I entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings?” and “Am I entitled to a fair hearing?” Because the very nature of traffic courts is unfair, it’s easy to get the judge to contradict himself. Use those positions/ arguments against the judge or prosecutor. The judge’s and prosecutor’s positions can always be used to get them to contradict themselves later. As with the first question above, after a few more questions the judge will say, “I’m not here to answer your questions.” I just have to then remind him he already told me I was entitled to be informed. Also, by asking just a couple of questions, I’ve had judges declare a witness competent, incompetent and then competent again in only a few minutes. By contradicting himself like that, all pretense of fairness is gone. One of the most valuable pieces of information you can learn about traffic courts and bureaucrat attacks is this: A ticket/ complaint is not synonymous with a case. Of course, a traffic court judge will disagree with this. His object is not truth and justice, it’s taking money away from people. Remember, just because a cop writes a ticket does not mean he has presented a case before a court. No court has the “legal” authority to proceed against someone unless a case is presented to it; this is just a short list of the “authorities” to prove it. However, traffic court judges are interested only in getting your money, so things like the “law” do not interest them. Go slow and question everything, ask for facts and don’t accept any opinions, these include the words law, statute, state, city, jurisdiction, license, constitution. Each one is an opinion and does NOT reflect reality or verifiable experience, ALWAYS ask them to tell you what it is FACTUALLY, don’t let them off the hook because you think you understand or you think it is obvious. If it’s obvious, then it can be demonstrated easily. My opinions can be rejected, so I only use theirs, which of course will always contradict if I ask the rights questions i.e., do I have basic human rights and does your control [jurisdiction] over my life depend on my freely given consent? Remind them to be RESPONSIVE to the question asking. It’s important not to improvise the questions, they are worded a certain way to purposely box them into a corner. ANYTHING that is NON-RESPONSIVE, including answers beyond yes or no, object to: OBJECTION, POINT OF CLARIFICATION (Use this as a way to nail down EXACTLY what is being meant by what is being said). “Objection, non-responsive, move to strike.” “Objection, to the term ___, the use of such terms assumes facts, not in evidence and nothing in relation to these legally defined terms has been previously agreed to, and furthermore, their use requires a legal conclusion.” OR “Objection calls for legal conclusion.” They will do and say whatever they have to in order to keep you off-point, including intimidation and disparaging you, ignore it and keep them on point and request they be responsive. Try to remember not to go in to prove I’m right or to teach them something.
For more information on this topic, you can visit Marc Stevens. He is an expert in this field with over 20 years of experience helping people defend themselves from victimless crimes., He hosts a radio program on Wednesday's and Saturdays where he answers questions and interviews people who have had successful dismissals by challenging jurisdiction. You can also get in on live role play by visiting the NSP (No State Project) Skype group. You just may find me in there role-playing as a judge!
