How To Win In Todays Courts!
Posted on: November 23, 2005 by: adminMac wrote:
Who initated the Court procedings? was it his ex? If so he much challenge jurisdiction. No licence, no contract, No jurisdiction. But as usual, the courts will do what they want, to whom they want, when ever they want. This is because our system of checks and balances has been destroyed.
Legalbear wrote:
Mac, why do you waste your breath stating what the majority of us already know? If we all stick with, “But as usual, the courts will do what they want, to whom they want, when ever they want.” then we will never see the remedy that is right in front of us. If you believe you are beaten before you start, you are already beaten. It is when you decree that you will win, that Jahuwah shines a light on your path and shows you the way to accomplish the win you seek. See Job 22:28 (You shall also decide and decree a thing, and it shall be established for you; and the light of Jahuwah’s favor shall shine upon your ways.)
I have learned that in law, unlike chess, there is no opposition to a player collecting as many “chess pieces” as are needed to win the fight. In chess, the opposition tries to prevent you from moving pawns to the back line to get another queen. The game of law and chess are alike in that the player that has the most pieces will likely win.
In law, there is no one that can keep you from mastering the use of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, Open Records Acts, Code of Judicial Conduct, principles governing disqualification and recusal, criminal charges, the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, civil RICO etc.
Unlike chess, in the game of law, there are all kinds of moves/actions that can be taken off the playing board that effect what happens on the board (courtroom). In law, since there is no rule preventing us from making moves off the board, even out of turn, why shouldn’t we take advantage of that? Frog Farmer’s IMOC (Initial Moment of Contact) strategies are an example of moves off the board.
I say that it is a good thing to start off going to court by saying, “But as usual, the courts will do what they want, to whom they want, when ever they want.” At least we all know where we stand. I call it “anticipating the oppression.” If I say, “I challenge jurisdiction!” We all know the judge is going to say, “I have jurisdiction!” At least we know what the judge is going to say. Then we can plan.
My plan in the past on this type of issue was to challenge an order, that the judge did not have his ego wrapped up in, in writing, with a carefully researched and thought out motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. I knew in advance, that the judge would probably summarily deny the motion. What the judge did not know, was that I knew, that in the state the motion was written for, the long standing law was that when jurisdiction was challenged, the BURDEN TO PROVE IT WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF! As soon as I learned that the judge had summarily denied the motion, without any input from the plaintiff, the first words out of my mouth were, “Game over!” I wrote a Motion for the Court to Take Mandatory Judicial Notice of Judicial Misconduct that pointed out the judge had been caught with his hand in the cookie jar; citing all the case law showing the judge just carried the burden for the plaintiff demonstrating his bias for the plaintiff; and then, the motion FORGAVE the judge and ask that he take some action to level the playing field. A few weeks later that court issued an order dismissing the entire case for, get this, failure of the plaintiff to prosecute! If that had not happened, the next move, already pre-planned, would have been to file a non-discretionary complaint for prohibition in the supervisory court raising two issues: 1) The plaintiff failed to carry their burden to prove jurisdiction; 2) The trial court was biased in favor of the plaintiff depriving itself of jurisdiction because it carried the plaintiff’s burden. Part of what would have been certified as the record to the supervisory court would have been the Judicial Notice of Judicial Misconduct wherein the trial court was given a thorough notice of what it did wrong. How embarrassing! When the trial court judge sees that well researched motion come in, he knows that he is not far from being embarrassed and possibly disciplined because he has done wrong and someone knowledgeable has caught him at it. Talk about motivation!
It is the sly; the witty; the clever; the wise; the informed that anticipates what the judge will do and formulates a plan; plots a strategy; and lays a well thought out trap, based on thorough legal research, that catches the judge totally off guard and displays to all the world that the judge is ignorant and biased in favor of licensed/authorized attorneys and the government.
To be effective at chess you must play the board from the opponent’s point of view. If he moves his knight to a particular square you have to ask yourself, why did he do that? When we know that the judge is going to say things like “I have jurisdiction” and “Is your counsel a licensed attorney” we need to ask ourselves, why is he saying that; what is his motivation?
If we catch him doing stuff wrong we need to think about the fact that we are dealing with a man or a woman that has feelings and that can be motivated. Both judges and IRS agents will immediately act to deliver themselves from pain. Both judges and IRS agents want to avoid embarrassment and will feel favor towards us if we come to them personally as admonished by the Scriptures. See Matthew 18:15, “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault BETWEEN YOU AND HIM ALONE. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” Look judge, I could nail you to the wall for this and get you in all kinds of trouble with judicial discipline and ruin your good name with the Supreme Court; however, I am here to discuss how you have offended me mano e mano (man to man) in the form of this motion for you to take judicial notice of your misconduct. If you do something to correct, this will go no further than this. I do not think there is anyone on this group that can tell me that the judge will not appreciate that. I think we can all agree that the judge has got to like you a little before he will give you favorable decisions on even the smallest of things. Remember, you are dealing with men and women that have feelings when you go to court; not computers.
What’s more, if you implement Scriptural principles in your strategy, there is no way you can lose.
Frog Farmer replied:
On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:39 AM, macwildstar wrote:
> But as usual, the courts will do what they want, to whom they want,
> when ever they want. This is because our system of checks and balances
> has been destroyed.
I avoid this problem by not using the concepts of “they” or “our”.
Use of “they” as a valid concept involves a conspiracy or other provable method of joining the related individuals together (are they
all Masons??) Use of “our” requires a similar set of common
denominators. I’m too individualized for anyone to name 5 of “us”.
And courts are not capable of doing anything; they are places where people do things.
I object timely. I saw no comments on that objections book I posted a link to – that is worth many times its price. But those are just trial objections – one may validly object to any rights violation or infringement at any time, especially at the IMOC. Most cases of complaints of doing “what they want, to whom they want, when ever they want” show evidence of consent many times along the way. If people don’t mean to give evidence of consent, they should not act in a manner that transmits that meaning in front of public witnesses like crowds and TV cameras.
My system of checks and balances is intact. When I notice happenings that require checks and balances, I invoke my system (borrowed from colonial rebellion times) and make sure that everyone knows something is not quite right. I often remind errant impersonating neighbors that I require my republican form of government that is guaranteed to me.
And I am only one potential revenue source – there must be thousands of others nearby who would never even think of raising any objection at all to “what they want, to whom they want, when ever they want.” I recommend us all having a nice day and pursuing more profitable actions!
> Moderator/Bear: Mac, why do you waste your breath stating what the
> majority of us already know?
For new list members?? 
> If we all stick with, “But as usual, the courts will do what they
> want, to whom they want, when ever they want.” then we will never see
> the remedy that is right in front of us. If you believe you are beaten
> before you start, you are already beaten.
No words were ever truer! You have to be able to see the outcome you want before you can arrange for it.
> It is when you decree that you will win, that Jahuwah shines a light
> on your path and shows you the way to accomplish the win you seek. See
> Job 22:28 (You shall also decide and decree a thing, and it shall be
> established for you; and the light of Jahuwah’s favor shall shine upon
> your ways.)
I know this is true even though I’ve had The Name wrong. I’m still not sure about the name, because of multiple spellings, some of which I’m sure had to be typos. As time permits, I’ll work on a chart of collected spellings and maybe we can narrow it down. And the topic raises several other interesting questions I’ll get to at another time.
But yes, if you say to yourself you are beaten, guess what? You’re
beaten by yourself! Be optimistic and have an open mind. Ever hear
of “the Little engine That Could”? It was a locomotive that had never climbed a mountain before. It sounded like “I think I can! I think I can! I think I can! I think I can! I think I can!”
By the time it was over, he knew he could. When you win, it occurs suddenly and you usually know the moment. Sure, they could hire someone to kill you. Are you worth it?
> In law, there is no one that can keep you from mastering the use of
> prohibition, mandamus, injunction, Open Records Acts, Code of Judicial
> Conduct, principles governing disqualification and recusal, criminal
> charges, the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, civil RICO
> etc.
Just this paragraph above should be enough of a “cheatsheet” for anyone to win! Even if you just go through the motions with every concept listed there, I cannot see much opposition carrying forward. I could never in real life so far ever use all those concepts in any one case – too much to do, BUT if I thought that nothing else was working already, I’d be using everything in that list. I’ve just never had to go that far yet.
> Unlike chess, in the game of law, there are all kinds of moves/actions
> that can be taken off the playing board that effect what happens on
> the board (courtroom). In law, since there is no rule preventing us
> from making moves off the board, even out of turn, why shouldn’t we
> take advantage of that? Frog Farmer’s IMOC (Initial Moment of Contact)
> strategies are an example of moves off the board.
That’s “Initial Moment Of Confrontation”(tm) – I’m exercising full ownership rights over the term because I’m the first person that I’ve ever seen advocate exercising rights of sovereignty (without having to use those words) as an INITIAL RESPONSE from the first nano-second.
It’s not out of turn either – actually, it is taking your turn at the first opportunity by raising instead of folding or calling. It’s going “all-in”.
EVERY OTHER CASE I’ve seen seems to try to recover sovereign status after making one or more waivers.
The concept of deciding never to waive any right for any cause or reason was first introduced to me by George Gordon. It’s a right we all have as Americans. It’s a game I play every day of my life.
“Let’s see if I can go through the day without waiving any rights…oh, look, here comes a man with a star on his chest…or a nice lady with a clipboard.” Let the games begin!
> I say that it is a good thing to start off going to court by saying,
> “But as usual, the courts will do what they want, to whom they want,
> when ever they want.” At least we all know where we stand. I call it
> “anticipating the oppression.” If I say, “I challenge jurisdiction!”
> We all know the judge is going to say, “I have jurisdiction!” At least
> we know what the judge is going to say. Then we can plan.
But now with the internet, we can plan earlier, and don’t have to go find out what he will say first. We can anticipate it even better now.
How about when he calls your name, the first words you say are, “if you are Mr. _____ _______, you sir, are disqualified from presiding in the matter of People v. Frog Farmer. The statutes do not permit you to rule upon the question of your own disqualification. You will be notified of the hearing should you decide to contest the disqualification. Do you wish to contest this formally, or would you like to recuse yourself in the interests of justice and forego a formal docketed administrative hearing on the record?”
Guess how it’s gone EVERY TIME I’ve done it?
> My plan in the past on this type of issue was to challenge an order,
> that the judge did not have his ego wrapped up in, in writing, with a
> carefully researched and thought out motion to dismiss for lack of
> jurisdiction. I knew in advance, that the judge would probably
> summarily deny the motion. What the judge did not know, was that I
> knew, that in the state the motion was written for, the long standing
> law was that when jurisdiction was challenged, the BURDEN TO PROVE IT
> WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF! As soon as I learned that the judge had
> summarily denied the motion, without any input from the plaintiff, the
> first words out of my mouth were, “Game over!”
I forget when I first was motivated to yell, “game over!” It had to be years ago. Hey just because there are people on the field playing with their balls doesn’t mean a real league game is in progress! It may look like a real game, and have all the separate parts, but something’s missing!
> I wrote a Motion for the Court to Take Mandatory Judicial Notice of
> Judicial Misconduct that pointed out the judge had been caught with
> his hand in the cookie jar; citing all the case law showing the judge
> just carried the burden for the plaintiff demonstrating his bias for
> the plaintiff; and then, the motion FORGAVE the judge and ask that he
> take some action to level the playing field.
Here, I can have no mercy like that, but if I were in a podunk locale with only one part-time-judge/barber, I might consider lightening the foot pressure on the throat, just enough for him to be able to articulate his surrender.
> A few weeks later that court issued an order dismissing the entire
> case for, get this, failure of the plaintiff to prosecute!
Makes one wonder what starts a “case”, huh? Maybe weather. Nope, that’s under too much control…must be something else.
> If that had not happened, the next move, already pre-planned, would
> have been to file a non-discretionary complaint for prohibition in the
> supervisory court raising two issues: 1) The plaintiff failed to carry
> their burden to prove jurisdiction; 2) The trial court was biased in
> favor of the plaintiff depriving itself of jurisdiction because it
> carried the plaintiff’s burden. Part of what would have been certified
> as the record to the supervisory court would have been the Judicial
> Notice of Judicial Misconduct wherein the trial court was given a
> thorough notice of what it did wrong. How embarrassing!
Embarrassment is a major motivator. One day in court, all I had to do when my name was called was to hold up the front page of a local newspaper. The judge recused himself in a half second.
By the way, that strategy above is almost step by step what is given as the right way to do things in the California codes, although they use different words and terms. Your “non-discretionary complaint for prohibition in the supervisory court” becomes a Peremptory Writ of Prohibition in the Superior Court. Law is law is law.
> When the trial court judge sees that well researched motion come in,
> he knows that he is not far from being embarrassed and possibly
> disciplined because he has done wrong and someone knowledgeable has
> caught him at it. Talk about motivation!
I’ve never considered these locals worthy of that much real work – I can fly a “trial balloon” verbally and it can be enough.
> It is the sly; the witty; the clever; the wise; the informed that
> anticipates what the judge will do and formulates a plan; plots a
> strategy; and lays a well thought out trap, based on thorough legal
> research, that catches the judge totally off guard and displays to all
> the world that the judge is ignorant and biased in favor of
> licensed/authorized attorneys and the government.
“Puhleeze, Judge Sir Massa, whatever you do, don’t throw me in that thar briar patch! Whatever you do, don’t do that!”
“Guards! Throw him in!”
And so Brer Rabbit got away again!
> To be effective at chess you must play the board from the opponent’s
> point of view.
Same with poker – you play the other guy’s cards.
> If he moves his knight to a particular square you have to ask
> yourself, why did he do that? When we know that the judge is going to
> say things like “I have jurisdiction” and “Is your counsel a licensed
> attorney” we need to ask ourselves, why is he saying that; what is his
> motivation?
And when you are two moves ahead, you can put him in situations that are rare and exciting for him, eliciting a rush of adrenaline. In poker, this is when quarry make mistakes. In court, this is when you hope the record is being made fully.
> If we catch him doing stuff wrong we need to think about the fact that
> we are dealing with a man or a woman that has feelings and that can be
> motivated. Both judges and IRS agents will immediately act to deliver
> themselves from pain.
Imagine that?! In Germany, “the supermen” were the same way.
> Both judges and IRS agents want to avoid embarrassment and will feel
> favor towards us if we come to them personally as admonished by the
> Scriptures. See Matthew 18:15, “Moreover if your brother sins against
> you, go and tell him his fault BETWEEN YOU AND HIM ALONE. If he hears
> you, you have gained your brother.”
Very true. Imagine this: a room full of people, all working as informants against all the others without knowing it. I’m pretty sure I had that going here one day. I had a “secret” with each and every one of them! In the end, the investigation folded and ended a few years of surveillence, at least the kind that was blatently obvious.
We all parted on good terms.
> Look judge, I could nail you to the wall for this and get you in all
> kinds of trouble with judicial discipline and ruin your good name with
> the Supreme Court; however, I am here to discuss how you have offended
> me mano e mano (man to man) in the form of this motion for you to take
> judicial notice of your misconduct.
Before I went that far, making a paper record, I’d meet with him “in chambers” to give it to him verbally. They usually invite the prosecutor in. Then you get a chance to give them your take on the upcoming blockbuster movie with Tom Cruise as Frog Farmer. I once laid out an entire plan and they surrendered. No paperwork necessary for anyone!
> If you do something to correct, this will go no further than this.
If you mean NO FURTHER at all in the case, okay. I once did that at an administrative hearing – gave them jurisdiction to dismiss for their own people’s benefit. (I need these semblances of civilization here in the wild West to keep the masses in check!)
> I do not think there is anyone on this group that can tell me that
> the judge will not appreciate that.
That one appreciated it so much he invited my friend and myself to choose which softdrinks would be served by the prosecutor who was sent out to get them – then we had the judge’s ear entirely!
> I think we can all agree that the judge has got to like you a little
> before he will give you favorable decisions on even the smallest of
> things.
I guess. Or you pin him down good with some verbal citations even the prosecutor can remember from law school, like, “Where rights are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” If people could only remember that one alone! That’s Miranda v. Arizona.
> Remember, you are dealing with men and women that have feelings when
> you go to court; not computers.
One time they fixed me up with a real cutie of a female prosecutor. As I waited in the pew, she sat in front of me and leaned over to whisper to me. A lover in bed could hardly have been any closer. With my nose in her hair, she whispered something like, “everything is going to be alright…all you do is ask the judge for a continuance, and he says he’ll take the case under advisement and in 90 days if you’re good, it’ll disappear.” I said, “sweetheart, that would give him jurisdiction, and because you’re new to this case, I’ll bet you didn’t even know that was my first issue here. Tell him ‘nice try’.”
She stormed off with a “hmmmph!” like a jilted lover, went through the door with the peep-hole in it (where I’m sure we were under
observation) and it took ten minutes before anyone came out as I sat there with my group of fans and well-wishers. When the judge came out, he “ordered me” to confer with the prosecutor (the old male one from
before) over the three charges they were stacking on me. I told him I had nothing to talk about with him – he knows my position on everything already. But I moved towards him to talk, and the judge yells, “not here! Outside in the hall!” And he called recess, and we all went out into the hall. Courts of law; Halls of Justice?
The prosecutor couldn’t wait to light a cigarette. He strode up and down the hall looking like a locomotive spouting steam. My friends and I were still standing by the door. He comes up and says, “the judge
ordered you to talk to me.” I said, “okay, shoot!” He said, “If you
plead guilty to the third least charge, I’ll drop the other two big ones.” I said, loud enough for all within three courtrooms lengths to hear, “Let me see if I get this straight [FF sez: that's an old G.Gordon line!], you want me to lie to the judge and then you’ll go easier on me?”
Off he strode spewing smoke! We went back in and told the judge what happened. I made record that a proper arraignment had still not been conducted and it was set for another date a month away. They were losing on the speedy trial issue.
> What’s more, if you implement Scriptural principles in your strategy,
> there is no way you can lose.
>
The basis of the common law!
Regards,
FF
