Defend Yourself against Government
Defend Yourself against 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 someone is able to receive a fair trial (which is never). Challenge: Jurisdiction, Corpu s 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 completely engrossed in taking your money. They are not in place to dispense any sort of 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. Stay away from making claims. Hold the state to proving their claims. Make the judge provide factual evidence for any claim he may make.
But, you 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 (see Marc Stevens video below), 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.
Remember you have not asked for the state to assist you, the state has taken it upon themselves to impede on YOUR life. If I was you I would request the factual evidence of your obligation. Don't be afraid to point out that you are constantly under threats of violence. If you didn't show up, what would happen? If you don't pay the fine what will happen? The answer is always violence. In the courtroom there are bound to be bailiffs, that is a threat of violence because at the tap of the gravel that bailiff can and will be used as a weapon against you willing to use violence.
Repeat: I am not an attorney I don’t comprehend legalese.
Legalese - the specialized language of the legal profession; language containing an excessive amount of legal terminology or of legal jargon. All non-lawyers are legally incapable of defending themselves and it is unfair to put someone on trial who does not understand the nature of legalese. The meaning a word has to the average Joe, has a completely different meaning with completely different implications in legalese. Legalese is certainly the language of tyrants. It is used to manufacture the consent of a contract between you and the state.
Don’t object and press a particular point once they threaten you with violence.
If I keep pressing a point, the judge is going to get angry, and judges are notorious for having anger management issues. Remember, traffic court judges do not care. One thing they care about is making the robbery look good. Once you have gotten him to start contradicting him/herself they will start showing signs of irritation and even telling you they "don't have time for this". You can push a point until the threaten you with violence. If they say "One more word and I'll arrest you for contempt" - DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD. The fact that they will manipulate your hearing by SHOWING their willingness to use violence can be helpful with getting a dismissal.
Stay on point.
Lawyers and judges with and without those flowing black robes are masters of distraction and 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 judge 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 disastrous to a bureaucrat’s case, so they tend to avoid them at all costs.
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 courts illegitimacy. By simply asking questions, we can point out we are not arguing, just asking questions. This is pretty embarrassing for the individual accusing you of arguing. Asking questions is also effective at proving there is no case, granted, we stay on point and only accept responsive answers.
Get the 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. When in the last few moments did I lose that right he already made it clear I had? Also, by asking just a couple of questions, I’ve heard 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 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.”
“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.