kevin
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by kevin on Dec 21, 2004 11:31:58 GMT -5
.., Today is my friends day in court and we went over the script last night. More details tonight on how it went.  .., Looking forward to hearing back from you on your friends court date! Kevin, |
|
RNT
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by RNT on Dec 21, 2004 11:58:39 GMT -5
well.....here is how it went in a nut shell.....remember this is my friend up there not me. The line of questioning and answers went like this.... Sir, I am here to plea guilty, but I have a few questions... Go ahead.... Do I have a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and these procedings? yes....and I just read them to you. Do I have a right to a meaningful hearing? yes, but this is an arraignment (no one informed us prior of this) Do the Nebraska Rules of Evidence apply hear today? No.....this is a different branch of government, they do not apply. Who has the burden of proof? the state (and then he goes on just restating the previos statement). Is there evidence of a complaining party? the judge replies....the state of nebraska.... Objection move to strike, non-responsive and rule 605 sais judges may not testify.... I said the rules of evidence do not apply here and I am not testifying since this is an arraignment. How do you plea.... Wes plead not guilty just to get it to trial. I would have handled this completely different because the lawyer was bringing in evidence and testiomonies against the people, I would have chalanged that. On the issue of him answering for the lawyer, who he said had the burden of proof, I would have started cross-examining him since he claimed the rules of evidence did not apply and he was giving testimony or I would have ended up demanding proof of claim of evidence of a complaining party. It was the biggest sham. Wes is fresh at this and fairly new to Marc's procedure's. There were also several questions for Wes to got to other than the evidence of a complaining party, I had another page of questions for pre-trial. But he got nervous (I would) and somewhat froze. I will keep you posted on the "trial".  |
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Dec 21, 2004 12:08:44 GMT -5
Since the judge wanted to answer the question, your friend should have held out for the YES or NO. Than asked for the facts to support the existence of it. Apparently, the judge will always say that the "STATE OF XYZ" is the plaintiff.
If your friend felt stymied, a good question to ask would have been "Am I presumed innocent of every element of the charge?"
Nervousness, will always be a problem. That's why it's so important to be prepared.
The judge said he would get a fair trial. Your friend could have just went for the jugular and asked who the judge represented.
Either way, your friend stood up for himself and experienced his alleged gubmit first hand. Experience is the best teacher.
I say congrats.
KT
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 21, 2004 14:10:13 GMT -5
I would have asked: "what rules apply here, if any?"
If I have to be specific, I ask if the rules of court apply. That is general and more difficult for the black robed wonder lawyer to get out of.
I agree with KT, I would have also pressed the black robed one for a "yes or no" answer to the question then went for the throat and asked him who he represented.
Your friend did a good job though RNT.
Isn't it amazing that judges INSIST that reading the charge is the same as the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings?
That's right, law school and membership in the BAR are not necessary to understand court procedure, just have a black robed super lawyer read you the charge.
Oh, I've been charged with having no ID? Thanks, that explains all the exceptions to the hearsay rule, THANKS AGAIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by weishaupt1776 on Dec 21, 2004 17:22:37 GMT -5
Bringing up the issue of standing pretty much nips the idea that there could be a plaintiff. Although I believe the ALL CAPS name is a constructive trust, if I was to try to use this as an end all-be all position, I would then put the unnecessary burden on myself of possibly going forward w/evidence that a stawman exists. I believe the STRAWMAN position hinges too much on calling a bluff.
In pleadings, people will say, I, the flesh & blood man, am not the defendant, but the STRAWMAN is. However, if you can, WITHOUT TAKING A POSITION BY ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS IN THE RIGHT ORDER; the scam can then be exposed that there isn't even a defendant in the first place whether it's you or YOU. Why? Because there is no evidence of a plaintiff, and if there was one, they don't have standing, because you got the court to admit it by their non-response to your pointed questions.
If there is no plaintiff, then how can there be a defendant?
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 21, 2004 17:48:01 GMT -5
Yes. And the opposite is true. If there is a defendant or DEFENDANT, there must be a plaintiff.
Why assume there is a DEFENDANT at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by theghost on Dec 21, 2004 18:27:13 GMT -5
RNT and others, I have a piece called Memorandum of Law on the Name that is quite interesting. I would post it here if Marc will allow, and tell me how. Otherwise, I'll share it privately with those who ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 21, 2004 18:37:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by theghost on Dec 21, 2004 22:08:19 GMT -5
Darrin, that's the one. First off, GNT asked for information on the name, and I responded.
I'm curious, what is the purpose of this forum if it's not to learn? Your remarks border on censorship. And yes, I've read the post on ettiquette. Even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will reveal that I have not tried to promote any particular theory or method on anyone. I have only shared some of my positive experiences in the courtroom, don't these count for anything? Maybe you think I was just lucky, about 8 times in a row.
Anyone wanting to learn how and why the government/courts treat/abuse us the way they do should have a thourough understanding of the history of this legal system that has taken more than 228 years to build. There is a heck of a lot of information out there that needs to be assimilated and digested. That's all I'm saying.
Knowing ABOUT the STRAWMAN is critical to understanding why we are treated as we are in the system, whether or not you use the argument. Apparently you've read the memorandum, what did you think, is it "bunk"?
Marc's teachings are the best stuff I've seen in my years of study and courtroom experiences, no question, but it is not the whole story. Maybe we don't need the whole story.
I think it would be wise for us all to share courtroom experiences here, good or bad. I for one would like to hear more from TicketSlayer.
Let's also keep in mind that there are always infiltraitors (misspelling intentional) on groups like these to spread doubt and fear and misinformation, which is one reason we need to read and evaluate everything we can for ourselves and not regurgitate whatever the majority is currently spewing out at the moment. And no, this is definitely not intended as a dig against you, Darrin.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Ghost on Dec 21, 2004 22:19:27 GMT -5
A friend of mine got a ticket for speeding and driving without a license here in omaha. He, with 4 witnesses went down to court house within 72 hours and asked for a certain adminstrator to say he showed within the 72 hours. He then turned over the ticket to her and a copy of the affidavit signed by the witnesses. His court date was on monday (yesterday) he had someone go in and listen (all day) and his name was not called and he has not heard via mail from the county either. Lots of waters to try. But I do like the simplicity of Marcs approach, but I am open for anyway to upset this corrupt system and the people who assume they have a right to control anyones life, liberty, or property.
|
|
RNT
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by RNT on Dec 21, 2004 22:22:47 GMT -5
sorry ghost that is my posting with your name on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 21, 2004 22:57:31 GMT -5
I find that bringing up the strawman deal in an abatement, say if the cops had a warrant and they came to your house. You hand them the "it ain't me" abatement and tell them to go back & give that to the judge. They may still bust your door down anyway, and they for darn sure ain't puttin' the cuffs on the strawman. So if you do wind up going to jail, knowing how to do a common law writ of habeas corpus, MIGHT get you before a "judge" in order to ask the box 'em in questions(if you've studied correctly)[/b]
|
|
|
|
Post by theghost on Dec 22, 2004 21:36:31 GMT -5
Interesting point Weis, reminds me of a time I had a cop at my door, looking for a fictional entity listed on his paperwork. He asked if it was me, I said nope, no such "person" here. He decided to argue with me and said;"we know it's you, why do you have to make this so difficult?" I said; Are you making a legal determination for me? No response. He then said he was going to leave the paperwork because he "knew" it was me, ans reached over and opened my screen door and started putting the paperwork between the screen and jamb, when I said; are you willing to swear an affidavit to that effect, that you served "me" properly, because I will check on it? He then retracted his paperwork and left. Oh, and I also told him he was now trespassing, and he left rather quickly. I'm not saying this will work for everyone, but he knew he was dealing with someone who knew exactly who he (myself) was. To date, I have sent 8 police officers packing, and have never been served once by them, which should tell you something. When you speak from the point of knowledge, and have conviction in your voice, we can pummel these bureaucrats. Once you've done it a couple of times, it really is fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 23, 2004 13:09:37 GMT -5
There is no problem with posting information about a case getting kicked. What I don't want to see are posts promoting paytriot arguments as rational arguments/positions. It's great when any case gets kicked, I don't want to argument promoted as some kind of silver bullet.
In the etiquette post, I did not write paytriot or patriot arguments should not be discussed; I wrote they may be discussed in context and limited to why they are irrational.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 23, 2004 13:11:21 GMT -5
Marc, you should make that "etiquette" topic a "Sticky", if this forum allows for it.  It does, thanks for pointing that out.  |
|
