court named doesn't exist!

[Neo]

Perhaps the biggest problem that patriots world-wide, of whatever "country," face is that they are unware that they've bought into a scam ("the matrix") so when they are teaching you to be like them / do as they do / think as they do / they are con-ing you without even knowing it. So, no matter how sincere they are in the correctness of their beliets, position, legal opinions, etc., whether they are charging you money to learn from, and possibly immitate them, or not, they are ultimately harming you and themselves whether they recognize this or not.

The heart of the matter is their "supreme law," whether it be a constitution or some other such thing. If it is without legitimate authority, everything from that point on is sadly, and, ultimately, irrelevant.

I believe the only value in discussing patriot beliefs at all is in determing what good points are they making so those ideas (e.g., what is a contract, really?), can be used to help build a new and better world, one free of patriots and constitutions and other legal land nonsense.

[Neo]

You can't get around it unless you want to live on the moon and function via barter.

Agents think they own virually every square inch of the earth and it's skies. Silence is not consent. Having to accept someone's terms just to survive and function is no different than a woman putting up with a rapist she can't get away from becuase she's kept locked in a cage for which the rapist has the only key. It doesn't matter if he thinks he's her "husband." There is no marriage ("body politic") when she has no choice but to submit -- or die. Agents are insane and many of them don't even know it, but ask them the right questions and place them in the right order and their insanity becomes obvious, hence the power of AILL.

[KaosTheory]

Scott,

I'm interested in your plan of attack for Tuesday. Maybe you should practice here so you'll be more relaxed and able to think clearer there.

Scenario:

Your name is called and you walk up to the stand and the judge asks you how do you plea or maybe if you understand the charges.

You say/do:

[scottinalaska]

KT,
Thank you for the invite. I can't begin to tell you how frustrated that I can only verbally roleplay with me!
I was telling a friend from Arizona yesterday how "sexy" it would be if my wife said, "Lets nail those bastards and expose the fraud. You be you, and I'll be the judge!" Don't think it will happen that way,
So here goes with you:
Your honor, I'd like to offer you this unsigned plea of guilty and let you know that I'd like to pay my fine and go home.
But your honor, I simply cannot sign it until I have some questions answered.
At this point, she will heave, likely tell me SHE is not on trial. Tell me I just saw the video for crying out loud, there just couldn't be any questions and you better not try and pull that stunt with me again like last time(or I'll send my henchman on you again!)
So before she even gets there, I think I'll preempt her reasons why she doesn't have time for this with "Thus, I need to know if I am entitled to know the nature and cause of the charges against me?"
I think I may help her this time by following up questions with "yes or no" so she doesn't think this is an essay question.
If she gets weary, as she will quickly, I am sure, I might say, "Your honor, it not my intention to weary you with my questions, but I must really have some answers clarified so that I may enter my guilty plea knowing full well the charges and proceedings that I am involved with. I have prepared these questions to be basic yes or no for the most part in hopes of not consuming this court's time by not coming prepared. Please accept my apologies for not being clear about that, your honor. I will try and make the questions yes or no so we can move on quickly.
I am still debating on my first "real" question.
such as "Is there evidence of a complaining party?"
or "Is this ticket considered a cause of action?"
or "Who do you represent?"
All chime in, here we go!
scott

[Neo]

Lazer, to answer your questions:

You are free to do whatever you want at all times -- that you're actually capable of doing, you're just not free to control the outcome.

What we believe or say about ourselves is not the key issue to consider. The key issue is how is an agent is going to interpret your activities. The degree to which you can anticipate how they will respond will determine the degree to which you can either hide this or that from them or choose to comply with the demands to get what you want, i.e., just cause you pay a tax doesn't mean you agree with it. I recall Marc once made the point, even if you file the tax form, if you write right on it "this is theft," at least you're making it obvious you're being robbed at gun point. Imagine if every tax return in the world was submitted this year and in big bold red letters every filer wrote "THIS IS ARMED ROBBERY. THE CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN OPINION BACKED BY A GUN," how do you think that would effect the mindset of government employees?

And, yes, the less of their "benefits" you accept, the more obvious their "claims" on your life have merit.

At this time, there is no law saying you cannot expatriate. What impact would it have if, tomorrow, 95% of all "citizens" of any "country" voluntary filed papers with "their" government saying they are surrendering "their" citizenship and either taking on the "citizenship" status of China, or some other place, would America turn into China at that point? Or what if all those new "expatriates" wrote in their “expate” papers they want NO citizenship from ANY "country." Answer: "The system" would implode, overnight. I predict that day will come.

[lazerwood]

Neo,

Again, an excellent post and I agree with what you have stated.

You wrote:
"The key issue is how is an agent going to interpret your activities".

Yes! So true...I was simply stating that "Mercier" shows us exactly how the "agent" interprets our activities.

You wrote:
"And, yes, the more of their "benefits" you accept, the more obvious their "claims" on your life have merit".

This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make. "Contracts", or more specific, BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE influences the degree of freedom we can reach for.

I like your expatriation statements! I'd sure like to see us all get on the "same page" someday and just "DO IT"

;D

Well, I'm going to let this be my last post on the contracts/benefits issue. If someone wants to continue on this they can send me a IM. Thanks for your input and very good posts Neo!

[Neo]

They're not true contracts, they just call them contracts, and example being, even if one is not utlizing any of their "benefits" they will still insist that you are "because you live here" and are "enjoying our protection." Of course, that's exactly how mafia bosses talk, but, what else is new?

If the mafia does it agents call it a crime. If agents do it they call it "legal duress."

[scottinalaska]

Neo and Lazer,
This thread is getting right up top with the most views, but the discussion has moved beyond the subject posted.
I just got off the phone with Chris, the quickly labled "Patriot" who just barely peeped in. We were able to discuss his astounding success with citation that was taking him to prison.
It dealt with contracts directly. He has a solid success record more than two years going on this and you would love to hear about it, I am sure. i am reviewing some papers he graciously faxed to me too.
I'd suggest starting a new thread on contracts. Perhaps Chris, who is now a member and not a guest, might move from "lurking" to contributing again.
As for my appointment, I have a question:
Mark says, among others, says when the judge is nonresponsive, you say,"Move to strike."
Does this mean the judge gets to try it again? Does it mean Strike the whole doggone trial/hearing because the judge isn't helping the "meaningfulness" he promised? Does it mean that the question shouldn't be recorded?
Really now. What is the evidence of the strike?
thanks for something practical here or any thoughts on my previous post.
scott

[Neo]

Don't know any "Chris" on this board or off.

New contracts thread was already started.

Tell Chris to do a google search on "Lynne Meredith," "Eddie Kahn," and or "pure trust" or "pure trusts." Those are two of many other patriots in the 90's who stood their ground and fought agents in court and are now in prison or on the run, with Irwin Schiff being the latest example, casuality. Search "Irwin Schiff." Also "Paul Andrew Mitchell."

"Move to strike" just means whatever it is referring to shouldn't be factored into the final decision made by a "judge" or "jury."

Is it? Probably. People are not computers that can just "delete" things from memory.

[KaosTheory]

scottinalaska said:

KT,
Thank you for the invite. I can't begin to tell you how frustrated that I can only verbally roleplay with me!
I was telling a friend from Arizona yesterday how "sexy" it would be if my wife said, "Lets nail those bastards and expose the fraud. You be you, and I'll be the judge!" Don't think it will happen that way,
So here goes with you:
Your honor, I'd like to offer you this unsigned plea of guilty and let you know that I'd like to pay my fine and go home.
But your honor, I simply cannot sign it until I have some questions answered.
At this point, she will heave, likely tell me SHE is not on trial.

She can't expect you to sign the plea if you don't understand the nature and cause. How could you sign unless you understand? It's in the rules of procedure. You are not a lawyer and you don't understand.

I agree with the yes or no questions. That is the way Marc goes about it. The only time he seems to ask for elaboration is when they take a position i.e. their assertions are based on facts currently within their knowledge. In which case, the facts must be entered into evidence.

Is there a prosecutor in your case or only a judge?

I am still debating on my first "real" question.
such as "Is there evidence of a complaining party?"
or "Is this ticket considered a cause of action?"
or "Who do you represent?"
All chime in, here we go!
scott

Have you listened to the archived radio shows?

Another approach that Marc uses is to go after the arresting officer and impeach his testimony. If there is no witness then there is no case. If you are worried about the judge, you could go this route. The officer believes that you were in the "STATE" on the day the "crime" was commited. It is easy to show that he is incompetent when he can't tell you factually what the "STATE" is.

Have you watched the DVD? Some questions that come to mind are:

1. Am I presumed innocent of the crime until proven guilty?
2. Am I presumed innocent of every element of the crime?
3. Is the burden of proof on me or on the prosecutor?
4. Is there evidence of a complaining party?
5. Is that an arbitrary opinion? ...produce the facts....if not..
6. Does the ticket present a cause of action?
7. Is it civil or criminal?
8. If civil, is it in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort?

In answer to your other question on "move to strike". That means you want that part of the testimony removed from the record because your question was not answered or the answer was non-responsive. One of the setup questions should be "Am I entitled to responsive answers to my questions so that I may understand the alleged charges?" Or something to that effect. If they don't give you responsive answers then they lied when they answered yes to this setup question. Also, if you can't get responsive answers then you can't get a fair trial. This is why the "Fair Trial" question is important. If she says it's a matter of opinion then you could ask if a "Fair Trial" means getting responsive answers....or get her to give her definition in some way.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

KT

[scottinalaska]

Neo,
Thanks for the response on "Move to strike." Chris is on page 3 I think who stirred up Rizzo who stirred up much more which I believe lead to the contracts discussion, that's all.
KT, I have listened to pretty much all of his archived shows while working on cars(my honest living I barter with here in these parts of the country). They have helped buoy my confidence.
I just gotta get by the first few questions!
I don't believe there will be anyone but me and the judge and the recorder again.
Perhaps the Trooper will be there, so I will prepare for both.
And by Wednesday, I'll post the continuing saga or the conclusion of the saga!
She's gonna ask, Do you have your driver's license with you now? Expired or not?
This is so that she can establish that I should understand this ONE citation court appearance AND to get me off track of my questions, I believe.
I am not sure if or how I should answer here.
I DO have a current license now, which may be her out to dismiss because I have done "the right thing" and had my heels cooled at her orders. Thus, if she finds this out at some point, it may be her gracious out.
Thoughts?
scott

[KaosTheory]

Scott,

Yeah, if she asks for a license and you show it and she dismisses then great. It sure is strange that the officer won't be there. I mean what a joke of a trial. Who is there to enter evidence then? How can there be a case when nothing is entered into evidence?

Anyway, I think you are on target with handing in the plea offer and trying to get to the "is there evidence of a complaining party" yes or no questions...or maybe the nature and cause questions.

Not sure what you and Chris talked about but whatever you decide to try, I'm interested in how it turns out.

KT

[scottinalaska]

KT,
I am thinking that this revengeful judge has had her revenge. Any questions I ask will stir it again and rob her of her revenge.
Thus, I need to somehow graciously tell her I have paid a humiliating debt and as I reviewed my audio recording of the stop(this is in case she sees any problems with the stop itself), I saw how I was asked no questions. I was told I knew I had an expired license and that was why I was stopped. I was forced out of the car. I complied for fear of my own safety, cuffed, taken to jail and told I would remain until the next day. This was because I presumedly had 2004 on my license instead of 2005. Now whatever statutes or laws permit such an action, I am not arguing. I indeed have in my possession a current License because of a previous stop. Thus, I am requesting a dismissal on the grounds that I have paid a humiliating debt, corrected the problem, and have acted honorably throughout.
THEN, if she says, "Forget it, boy!"
I begin my questioning.
Thoughts anyone?
I can't begin to tell you how many people call to say, "Give it up, you'll lose! She holds a grudge. Thos questions are stupid. The TICKET is the evidence, can't you see? " Such well meaning people....
scott

[chris]

Scott , You could ask the judge if there is an assesment for the charges. Chris

[scottinalaska]

OK,
Time for the update!
They put another magistrate up there. It was the recorder for the last magistrate that sent her henchman after me two weeks ago. I guess they tag team.
Still, I asked for a dismissal as stated above because of the "humilating price" I had already paid.
Just trying not to stir them up anymore, I can only fight so many battles on so many fronts.
BUT before I could tell my quick story and ask for dismissal, she spent 8 minutes reading statutes and get this, how I "am in violation of AS 28.15.011(b) and against the peace and dignity of the State of Alaska."It's written there right on my Misdemeanor complaint.
Wow! Now that must be the EVIDENCE of the complaining party - the state's dignity has been violated!
Oh, she also told me if found guilty, I would serve 90 days and have a 500 dollar fine leveled on me.
Interestingly enough, for the two others in front of me, one with no insurance and the other no license, she told one he had two weeks to get a license and the other 6 months to get insurance. They both left and DROVE off! (windows, you can see them!).
NOW, she told me she wouldn't dismiss, but would let me take my request to the DA on Monday morning at 9 since she'll be here then. I asked her if I had plead guilty or not guilty or if she had for me. She said no one had plead anything.
I thought she had two choices - yes or no on my dismissal. If yes, she'd face the previous magistrate's ridicule. If no, she'd face similar questions she saw box in her friend two weeks ago. So, she picked neither!
Well, more time to prepare again.
I am still nervous in there. But getting better. My wife isn't better, just worse in all this. Your prayers for her are coveted more than you know.
scottinalaska
PS: She verbalized to me right at the end that I could contact the DA before then if I liked. What does that mean? Is she hinting that perhaps all parties could withdraw privately?
I will probably contact the DA thursday or friday.