The game of corrupt government largely rests on the wilfully blind belief, or ignorant-order-following by the minions, of the fundamental position in law of “we don’t need no stinking jurisdiction! See this gun, see that jail do as a I say, or else!”
It seems crazy to write, that but I have seen it over and over personally and everyone is seeing it more and more openly on the news, YouTube and daily in the courts. To deny it is to be part of the problem.
Marc Stevens does a pretty good job exposing the fundamental failure of the “state” to play the game in a fair and open manner. To my mind people are happy to play the game when it is fair, they become unhappy when the see the daily, inherent unfairness and abuses by those supposedly “officials” we expect to actually be “policing” the game.
The game no longer serves the people. The game has been hijacked for the benefit of those willing to cheat, lie, steal and kill…then, not hold each other accountable.
IF the game was still honest (was it ever, or is it just a matter of degree?) no “official” would mind demonstrating they have jurisdiction to support their claims against you…but they will not. They avoid it like the plague. They avoid it like they will be in trouble some how and they either run away or attack the person daring to question their claim of authority.
It’s a fair question, easy to answer, then we can move on to the issue… unless it is a lie.
Failure to respond is both confession and admission of wrongs done and further waives all defences.
Check out Marc’s post on asking the court to confirm the existence of jurisdiction by the claimant with a notice in writing: “I will plead guilty IF they prove jurisdiction”. Doing this avoids the whole “refusing to plea” so judge pleas for you game and puts the burden on the claimant AS IT SHOULD BE to prove the jurisdiction they claim in order to proceed fairly. For the court to proceed after jurisdiction has been challenged and not properly established is a big procedural no no.
Good articles and videos worth reviewing.
“By intending on pleading guilty and asking for evidence the prosecutor is supposed to have anyway, we expose the judge for the criminal they are when he/she predictably refuse to address the issue of jurisdiction. He/she will lie claiming jurisdiction is a trial issue. Instead of discussing the evidence, in anger they will enter a plea of not guilty over your objection. The judge may only enter a plea of not guilty when you refuse to plea or when a plea cannot be ascertained. The unsigned plea of guilty proves he’s lying and just covering up for the prosecutor, his/her accomplice.
The three errors, in addition to his lying about jurisdiction being a trial issue, are:
1. They lie that you are refusing to plea.
2. They assume jurisdiction and an essential element of the crime (applicability of the code) on behalf of the prosecutor.
3. They adamantly refuse to presume innocence.
When the psychopath screams at you to take your pretrial date and leave, you can object, point out his lies and put him in a real bind by asking: Can you please explain how you can assume the laws apply to me at the same time you’re supposed to presume innocence?
You won’t get an answer, probably just a threat of contempt. By contempt is meant you caught the judge being deliberately unfair and prejudicial to you and he has no defense other then threatening violence.
You can file a motion to disqualify the judge and vacate the plea using the three issues above and the fact he is lying about jurisdiction being a trial error. I’d use it as a basis for a complaint to the presiding judge, the judicial conduct commission, the supreme court and to the municipality’s insurance carrier.
http://marcstevens.net/articles/plea-guilty-tool-getting-tickets-kicked.html
http://marcstevens.net/articles/another-ticket-kicked-out-in-california-no-evidence-of-jurisdiction.html
A second post by Marc with a Canadian law professor is interesting also. The professor admits jurisdiction is a presumption rarely challenged and subject to question.
http://marcstevens.net/articles/no-rational-basis-for-applicability-of-laws-interview-with-law-professor.html
