Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Do not fight the courts!
I have won as Pro Se... it is about fighting bad law and making your case clear enough they can understand what the hell you are talking about.
Many times I see Pro Se litigants who want to fight jurisdiction do it ALL wrong. In the end as the confusion sets in, the Pro Se litigant ends up fighting with the courts rather than the accuser. This is bad and prevents any real chance of winning their case.
You cannot be hostile towards the courts because someone filed against you.... its like getting mad at the referee on a game field because the other team showed up to play the game.... makes no sense!
The question of jurisdiction is on the accuser, not the courts. The courts are merely a means in which to handle a dispute. If the accuser filed in the wrong court, then say that... if it's the right court but the accuser's understanding of the law is perverted then say that.... if the accuser is misapplying the law, then say that! If the Constitution prohibits the accuser(if it is a government agent of department) from violating a natural right, then say that!
When I teach people on how to fight a case, I start with explaining that pre-trial is the part of the trial where you challenge the law itself, rather than the facts of the case. I have rarely challenged the facts of the case, because if the law is applied as is, I am guilty. But my beef is with the law, not the facts.
In pre-trial, your first motion to dismiss, is the start of your file in supreme court. You write your brief as if you are already at supreme court and are challenging the law. The challenges are based on the contradiction and unconstitutionality of the use and application of the lower law you are being accused of violating. You must establish natural law as supreme and the proper role of government to protect those rights, without that, the government become the enemy of rights rather than the protector and we spiral into anarchy as the government become the criminal we originally established government to protect us from. A counter productive scenario for government. Without the government protecting the natural rights of all, you cannot have law and order because there can be no legal claims to life, liberty or property when they are violated.
When you end up fighting the courts instead of the accuser, you destroy the impartiality of the courts in your case. And yes, sometimes you have to ensure they are maintaining impartiality at all times and are merely applying court procedure equally to both sides without opinion or interest in the outcome of the case. Should you feel you have evidence of prejudice on their part, you should rise and object by saying that because of the judge's current statement or actions, you no longer feel that you will be guaranteed a fair trial in this case. Either the judge can recuse himself at this point or the trial be dismissed. If not, you add this to your case as well, while moving forward.
But never get into an argument or battle with the judge. It is a waste of time, and you should never allow the judge to argue either, since he is not the prosecutor and has a duty to remain as a moderator/referee. If a judge starts to argue on behalf of the prosecutor, kindly ask him/her if they have an interest in the outcome of the case? This should make them realize they are dangerously close to the edge of where they don't belong.
Anyways, I am currently helping as friend fight pet licensing laws in Davenport, and while obstacles were initially placed in his way, we have quickly knocked them all down and now we are finally actually arguing the law at hand and its violation of private property rights.
The courts are there as neutral grounds to handle disputes peacefully, rather than out in the street with guns. Let's make sure our courts remain neutral while we fight against bad laws.
"The R3voﻠution is Now"