My day in "court".. Psychopath judge.. full audio recording.. VERY interesting

[ChRoNo]

Well, I filed the affidavit and was ordered to pay up, on Monday March 22.  Today is Tuesday March the 30'th... I still have no warrant.  I think at this point, it's probably safe to say, that I was successful in making them halt their aggressions against me.

They can take their demands for my $465 and go to hell.

[ChRoNo]

Well, I had my hearing today on my motions filed for indigency and waiver of transcript fees in the Superior Court.  It went fairly well.  Some good news, some bad news, and some interesting insight into the mind of a Superior Court Judge bureaucrat:

Bad News: The motions were denied due to, mainly, there was no "exigent" circumstances which would give, I guess, justification for the County to be held responsible for the costs of my appeal.  In other words, the fines levied did not exceed 750$ and there was no talk of jail time.  So I have to pay the filing fee and transcription.

Good News: I moved that the Court stay the municipal court fines pending an appellate decision, given the nature of the appeal and high probability of a reversal, and this motion was granted.  So they faxed an order down to the municipal thugs basically telling then to leave me alone until the appeal process is concluded.

The full unedited audio for the motion can be heard here:

http://pcti-system.com/Indigency.WAV

The interesting insight: I decided to utilize some of this time at the hearing to ask the Judge his beliefs and philosophy with regards to the idea of Jury Nullification.

I was asking him if he believes that Juries have not only the power, but the right to nullify Laws if they feel them to be unjust.

Here are some of his statements:

"It's kind of a perversion of justice"

"I don't fucking like it" (yes he did cuss on the record!)

"I don't think it's right"

"That's not right, the way it works during the trial is I break the law down to the Jury and they decide according to the facts"

"It's important that I give them what the Law is."

The full unedited audio can be found here:

http://pcti-system.com/Nullification.WAV

[KDus]

I'm going in tomorrow morning to file another motion I drafted up pursuant to the suggestions I got from Marc on the radio.  There is no way this Judge can read this and not dismiss the case immediately or continue it with a straight face.  I encourage everyone to read this, you'll probably find some humor in it... should be attached to this post.

Hopefully, he will be just overwhelmed by embarrassment, and go away.  =)

I'm very impressed by the motion!Awsome

[ChRoNo]

I got my transcripts and I completed my appeal Sunday night.  I have to submit this to Superior Court now and decide whether I want to request oral arguments.  The appeal brief should be attached to this post.

[jzacker]

I got my transcripts and I completed my appeal Sunday night.  I have to submit this to Superior Court now and decide whether I want to request oral arguments.  The appeal brief should be attached to this post.

Your best argument was your denial of Cross-examination.  And you buried that at the bottom.  But for a non-lawyer pro-se litigant, it wasn't terrible.  However, your missapplication of law might result in the Court ignoring your better arguments.

[ChRoNo]

You're constructive criticism would be much better if you elaborated a bit more.  I think all my arguments are with merit.  Personally, I think the best argument is the first one.  I'm pretty confident about this being overturned.

[jzacker]

You're constructive criticism would be much better if you elaborated a bit more.  I think all my arguments are with merit.  Personally, I think the best argument is the first one.  I'm pretty confident about this being overturned.

The denial of cross-examination is your best argument because you actually have proof that you were 'cut off'.  And its a more straightforward issue.  Essentially, it easier for the court to deal with this argument.  The right to cross examine has a wealth of precedent.

Your argument about being informed about the nature of the charges really isn't supported by the facts.  You were informed, you just kept saying 'I don't understand'.  Courts will look at this as willful blindness.  And courts do NOT like defendants who claim ignorance.   If courts allowed defendants to use 'I don't understand' as a defense, then anyone could use it for any reason.  A murdered could walk in the door and say 'I don't understand the charges!!!'  The court won't go for it.

Your quote from Parke v. Riley makes absolutely no sense.  Parke was about a knowing GUILTY plea.  Your case has a NOT GUILTY plea.  Parke analyses the rights and privileges that a defendant waives when entering a GUILTY plea and the importance of proving that the GUILTY plea was knowing and voluntary by putting the defendant's admissions on the record.  Your case has none of those elements because the court entered a NOT GUILTY plea for you.

Where are you finding your cites?  Are you reading the entire case or are you just pulling random quotes?

[Chris LeRoux]

This was awesome! have you considered trying a negative averment or an accepted for value? Also, you might try, if you end up at another court party, to demand to see all undisclosed adhesion contracts, arguing their invalidity due to fraud. They won't want to show those contracts....

[KDus]

This was awesome! have you considered trying a negative averment or an accepted for value? Also, you might try, if you end up at another court party, to demand to see all undisclosed adhesion contracts, arguing their invalidity due to fraud. They won't want to show those contracts....

You gonna suggest he sends them a 1099a, too?

AFV doesn't make any sense considering his approach, so far.
Negative averment is an admin procedure that should have been done before court. Good luck asking for evidence to the contrary during a hearing.
Making demands in court won't get you anywhere. Using their system will only legitimize it; in opposition to what he seems to be attempting.

[Chris LeRoux]

No, I would NEVER suggest using a government form. Doing so is accepting a benefit/privilege from the State and thus waiving your rights in favor of their adhesion contracts. The negative averment can be done at any time outside of the 'court party.' I suppose you condemn jury nullification as legitimizing the state? Very strange positions. I really suspect the opposition to opposing the 'justice' system is cop based. Normal people may not believe its possible to defend yourself or that they can speak for themselves instead of hiring an 'attorney' to speak for them like they are a child, but this is the first time I have ever seen people actually opposed to any efforts in defense, except by cops and attorneys. Hell, some of my attorney friends are very supportive and help us out actually.

[KDus]

Do you think there are a lot of "normal people" on this forum?

An informed jury is ours, not theirs. An ignorant jury is theirs.

Unless you handle business on the private side, you're accepting general jurisdiction.

[MMeta]

I compiled a list of very nice covert audio and video equipment.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=4099&hilit=100+things&start=10

Meta

[MMeta]

The soul who is challenging jurisdiction and is in Special Appearance, should know that all Acts, Statutes, Regulations and Codes do not apply to him, only to Government, Corporate people, namely the Judge, Prosecutor, Clerks and Cops. If he admits to being a US Citizen, under the 14th RED Amendment of the fraud Constitution OF the united States, then he will be considered as a Government employee. If he claims he is a State National (Maine National or United States National) under the original, organic Constitution FOR the united States, then he is not a Government employee and the charges under the Acts, Statutes, Regulations and Codes do not apply to him.

He should also consider raising his own status from Defendant (the lowest status) to "The Holder of the Office of General Executor of this Account" (the highest status) so he will control his Court. Status is everything. This takes a "knowing who he is". It's essential. When he walks into Court like a King, and starts asking all the questions rather than answering them, he will overstand his own Court.

He should also challenge the Judge for adjudicating from the bench (making judgements) like a Lawyer when the alleged judge is only his public administrator and may not have a BAR card or a license to practice Law (Legalese).

If he goes in as General Executor, he can order the Judge and Prosecutor (repeat it 3 times...essential tradition) to make the Judge the Trustee and Prosecutor the Assistant Trustee to discharge his business matters and settle the matter. They have never done this, even after being trapped into doing it after 3 repeats of the orders. They will get up and leave the Court to him, where he can now claim they have abandoned the Court and he is the only Sovereign left...so he dismisses his own case. WFS has a video of this happening in an English Court. I'll be looking out for it, to post.

Meta

[FTL_Ian]

There are no citizens, MMeta, because there is no obligation to protect.

He should also challenge the Judge for adjudicating (making judgements) like a Lawyer when the alleged judge is only his public administrator and may not have a BAR card or a license to practice Law (Legalese).

I'll believe this when I see you on video doing it.

[MMeta]

Ian,

There are no citizens?

What do you mean?

Do you know how "citizen" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to begin this discussion?

Meta