- Updated #NSP #AiLL successes: Documentary Proof of Tickets and Assessments Kicked Out.
- Search for truth and building a voluntary society doesn’t have or need leaders.
- Prosecutors don’t believe they have to prove essential elements of violations they accuse people of.
- More circular reasoning from state lawyers, “they [laws] apply as a matter of law” and “you don’t need facts to prove the laws apply, it’s a given.”
- Prosecutor refuses to answer how she can prove a code violation without first proving the code is applicable.
- Judge stating California court system is not adversarial.
- Buffalo, New York workshop Nov. 3, 2012, Brick by Brick Bible Church 212 Harding Rd. Williamsville, New York.
- Keith from Melbourne, Australia: ex parte hearings, judges who refuse to be fair just ignore you and speak to the prosecutor as if we’re not standing there; judges thinking asking questions is an “interrogation”, reminding judges the burden of proof is on the prosecutor- they need to answer the questions;
- Fred from Idaho: Psychopath judge rules only witness incompetent to testify and refuses to dismiss; never testify against yourself, never take a plea;
- Bo from Austin: motion hearing where prosecutor doesn’t say a word; judge thinks motion to dismiss based on lack of facts proving jurisdiction is circular and asinine,
- Ed from NY: challenging jurisdiction, judge asked for facts, has to consult with her legal team – Why confer? The prosecutor is right there, what facts does he have?
- Jerome from Baltimore: Asked a judge what the phrase “color of law” meant; judge responds with: “We don’t use that phrase here.”
- Thomas from California: Nine cops didn’t show up for court;
- Karl from Alabama: Karl presents is theory that traffic courts are using tickets to create credit.
It’s no surprise these lawyers don’t think they have to prove essential elements; I think it’s a good idea to keep questioning them on it though, in and out of court. As long as they exert constant pressure on us to comply with there code, we should constantly pressure them to prove their code is applicable to us.
As I mentioned on the show today, I spoke with several state lawyers this past week and they made some pretty good admissions e.g., “they [laws] apply as a matter of law” and “you don’t need facts to prove the laws apply, it’s a given.” Sorry, but I’m not buying that crap and neither should anyone claiming to be rational and interested in the truth.
Then there is a judge in California stating the court system is no adversarial. Despite this obvious lie, the prosecutor stands by and doesn’t say a word to correct the judge. And why not? Why point out the judge is wrong and have that burden of proof put back on them?
And that burden of proof is not satisfied by labeling me a moron, idiot or other personal attack. Those interested in the truth, will question whether the constitution and code are applicable. If it is a given, then it follows it can be proven. You look at the facts and start putting them together and prove a connection. If there isn’t one, then the opinion must change to conform to the facts.
Sadly, too many will not accept the facts, but cling to dogma and their own perceptions of what the facts should be. Instead of being adults and accept what the facts prove, they get angry and make personal attacks.
Don’t be fooled. Look to the facts.