Responding to Contempt in court

suijuris · #1 12-07-2003, 10:52 AM

The following post is an article I found, please read it let me know your thoughts.&I have tried to cut through the indoctrination and get to the point of the article...

suijuris · #2 12-07-2003, 10:53 AM

&

If you know the right words, they back down right now - they may still have you arrested, but you have said the right words on the record to descredit him in his contemptuous acts against you, and you will use this record in any appeal or future hearings as you go. The main thing is you DISCREDIT HIM and IMPEACH HIM IN HIS OWN COURTROOM if you say the right things. This can be used in any court in any setting, at any level, all the same basic process. I think in any country, with slight variations. 

Sui Juris process is simple and common law, as "any reasonable people would understand" and bridges all forms of courts or dealing with public authorities. One of the main TOOLS they use to arrest you in a courtroom is "CONTEMPT OF COURT". Contempt is an instant six months in jail or a year sentence, potentially that is what you face. They use this for any or no reason, mainly for intimidation, and this is where they will (have already) use a stun belt or gun on a defendant who "irritates" the court asking for our rights. 

When they do this to you, and it happens so fast it makes your head spin, if you have this written down, and can keep your wits about you enough to remember to say it, (you should practice it ! It is THAT important !) here is what you say: "IS THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT JUDGE?" (You wait for a response on the record - do not talk until he answers and if they pause this LONG pause is on the record that he cannot answer you - the silence of a witness answering a question is an admission of truth in a court record and the longer the pause the better. 

All you want on the record is to make them COMMIT and then you go on, and now you have them caught in the permanent record) 

If he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT" - you say "WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, WHAT IS THE CRIME AND WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?" and wait again as long as it takes for him to say something. 

If he says "CIVIL CONTEMPT" you say "WHERE IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND YOU? I DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT", JUDGE. NOW you have him acting CRIMINALLY OUTSIDE OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND OUT OF IMMUNITY in his own courtroom on the record and heres why. In civil court, EVERYTHING is a CONTRACT and nothing can be done that is not a form of a contract. And ONLY HUMANS CAN LAWFULY CONTRACT. Every citation, money exchange, order, anything at all is an exchange - a contract - between two humans. The constitution is a contract with the Children of a Creator with Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally Sovereign People in the state, bonded by the JUDICIAL OATH - their contract. 

Anyway, when you say to him "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" he KNOWS he does not have a contract with you and if you have committed no crime he has no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - he is OUT of his lawful jurisdiction and OUT of his IMMUNITY. 

Now, if he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT", like one judge did to me, judge Robert Walberg, with no lawful oath by the way, he made a FOOL of himself ! He said "IF YOU ASK THAT AGAIN I AM HOLDING YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT" I said "IS THAT CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CONTEMPT WALBERG?" and he raged and said CRIMINAL'. I said "WHAT CRIME HAVE I COMMITTED AND WHO MAKES THE CLAIM? WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?' He went nuts and started yelling "THE STATE OF OREGON", "THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM", "THE COURT"..... I said "YOU KNOW THAT ONLY A HUMAN CAN MAKE A CLAIM AND THERE IS NO CRIME AND NO INJURED PARTY - YOU KNOW THAT THE STATE OF OREGON CANNOT MAKE A CLAIM" he backed down and sat there red faced (he had already arrested me about three times for speaking before this contempt attempt) and it shut him down. 

This was on the third day of the battle in his courtroom/sham jury trial last January - so after this confrontation backed him down he sat WAY BACK in his chair for three hours and let me make the record, while the jury waited in the back. MAKING THE RECORD WAS MY ONLY GOAL ANYWAY TO UPDATE THE RECORD IN OUR CASE. 

Unfortunately for us, the juries do not understand anything at all, and these confrontations scare them, so all the knowledge of court process and higher law goes right over their heads and they do EXACTLY what the judge LETS them do by the way he manipulates the instructions. This judge held his finger to his upper lip and looked like a cadaver for three hours, listening to the record of the crimes of our evidence against the state and his own treason as I outlined what has happened. That is how you make the Record. 

You have to use another trick called "OFFER OF PROOF". When they fight you and attack you, and rage, and say you cant say anything in front of the jury, and the DA interrupt literally EVERY sentence to stop you from speaking for days (I have gone through this !)... you tell the judge "I AM GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR MY APPEAL". He sometimes will go in the back room altogether and leave the record on, or he will sit way back and listen while you make the record of your facts without the jury present. 

Another trick process word is "OFFER INTO EVIDENCE" they will let you go around for days and be denied because you don't say it that way ...... they are insane, but if you do use their words they know that they have to acknowledge that this is their process and they use it so you have to be able to use it too. 

Another important phrase to use is RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. After going around with them to a certain point and being blocked at all points, you say 'ARE YOU TRYING TO RUSH ME TO JUDGEMENT?" WOW - it works - boy they sit back so fast and shut up you would not believe - you would think they were shot -supposedly four times in a hearing saying that gets a reversal, but with us they don't give us anything, so I am not sure. But it is an important TOOL, you say this and it means they are preventing you from putting on your evidence as a lawful court and judicial due process requires, and for you to say this as they are doing it is like shooting them in their chair.

#3 03-22-2004, 04:59 AM

Wow. Had never thought of "contempt" in terms of civil v criminal. (Great. Another research topic, right?)

So they do have "magic" words, eh? Like we teach our kids? Magic-words, like "please," and "thank you."&

I've spent more than my "fair share" of money in four years for "information" about irs, taxes, "stuff," but the best $99.00 I've spent was here:

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

Still haven't finished going through it all (printing each section into its own "book form"), but this is what I'd call "Law 101.)& That's his major premise as well: You gotta speak "their" language.

Thanks, Sui Juris. Also carries more impact because it came from personal experience! Good for you. Seems most people go through these experiences and learn nothing, coming away only with the "thrill of victory or the agony of defeat."

Personally, I'm convinced that a "day in court" should be be part of a high-school education. Say, oh, by 10th grade, each student must spend one day sitting in court, watching, listening, taking notes. Now THAT would be an education they'd never forget.

Randy

#4 04-05-2004, 09:56 PM

WOW. I am going to memorize this!

ANy way you can post the rest of it? Looks like great material.

Thanks SJ

#5 04-06-2004, 06:55 AM

Have just about finished reading all of materials received from jurisdictionary. Such as what's been posted here is covered in detail in his material. Excellent, excellent stuff!

Of as he says: If you don't win before you get to court, you probably will not win.& I highly recommend his materials.

And while I'm ranting, there are two other "strategies" that sound promising, at least to me, when dealing with BB:

1) Ex Parte
2) Laches

"Ex parte" strikes a nerve because, here in VA, if you seek administrative remedy for assessed tax debts, the Tax Commissioner has the legal authority to go before the judge, with YOUR "defense" materials, and seek an "unofficial" ruling as to your position, and IF it seems you would lose in court, THEN the Tax Commissioner will decide how best to proceed. That's proceeding "ex parte." In my world, it just plain sucks. (And yes, I've already told them this....)

"Laches" is the delay in proceeding. I.E., just why does the IRS/state tax-agents, wait SO long before proceeding with court action? They bill you, assess you, bill you, and so on and so forth.&And somewhere down the road,&they just might take it to court. Why wait so long?

Randy

john4na · #6 04-06-2004, 04:35 PM

Hello All,

I have recently gone through this in court (Criminal case)

I told the judge I was there In Propria Persona...

He ask WHAT?

I said it again, I was there In Propria Persona...

he asked me if I was representing myself?

I said I was there in Propria Persona,

He asked me again if I was representing myself?

I said I was there in Propria Persona,

He said if I don't answer yes or no I would be held in
contempt of court and asked me again
I said I do not wish to be contemptuous, but I was
there in Propria Persona,
and he said I was in contempt, and told the bailiff to arrest me.

I asked him if it was criminal or civil? he said criminal and
I asked who the injured party was.

And He ignored me and went on to the rest of the business of the court.

Later after everyone left he took a small break and came back out and asked

who the guy in the back of the court was and my friend said he was waiting for me.

I had time (Since I was being rushed earlier) to think about the way I

should respond
he asked again, if I wanted to represent myself?

I told him I was there Representing myself in Propria Persona.

He then continued on, They (The prosecuter Public Defender, and

Judge had quite a long conversation about my competency.

They decided that I probrobly was competent and the judge went

on to ask me a half million questions about my knowledge of court procedings.

Since I really do not think it will get that far I was answering them

as honestly as possible. Most of the questions were "I don't understand

that",... and "NO, I have never heard of that."

The end result was that they scheduled another pre-trail date and a Trial

date the next pretrial is on April 19th, The Trial is in May.

I have NO IDEA (Very scared might be the better term) what docs to file next.

I have filed several here is the link to the ones I did file if anyone would

please take a look and let me know which direction I should go in.

It sure did seem like he was going to run right over me that day, and I

know that is what their job is is to run over us, but I can do more

from outside the cell than from inside the cell, and I believe I found

the happy medium we both wanted.

My next thought is to file motion for dismissal based on lack of

jurisdiction but do not know how to phrase what?

I know everything cannot be perfect but it sure does need to be right.

Not looking for legal advise just some help here.

John

Jerseee · #7 04-06-2004, 04:45 PM

john,

sounds like you need to learn the courtroom procedures. Good job though.

What say you Ice?

suijuris · #8 04-06-2004, 05:13 PM

If someone were to ask me if I wanted to represent myself, I would say something like this:

"No, it is impossible for me to represent myself. I AM MYSELF! I am here sui juris, meaning that I am competent to handle my own legal matters, and wish to proceed without futher delay."

When a judge asks a yes or no questions, and you refuse to answer, one can expect contempt charges. If I were asked the same more than once and could not answer it, then I would say "I am sorry, I do not understand the question" or "I am sorry, I cannot make a legal determination".

John4a - did they arrest you for contempt or not?

Sui Juris

Ice · #9 04-06-2004, 05:55 PM

I looked at a couple of your docs john...

Question:Â* What are you in court for?Â* All those docs filed in the case ... and I didn't see that you approached the "charges".Â* All I saw was a bunch of redemption stuff that the judge and prosecutor are just going to ignore... and if you take the "unauthorized use" stuff to the "invoice" stage and file liens...Â*you will get slammed as a paper terrorist and have a whole new set of troubles to deal with.

If you want to do something constructive then look at the law --- the ACTUAL LAW that you are dealing with andÂ*search forÂ*your remedy there.Â* Here is a clue: are you charged with violation of a "code"?

Â*

rushpat · #10 04-06-2004, 10:08 PM

Not sure how many Rice Mcleod fans there are here, but he has been saying for a while to say to any question that you can't make a legal determination at this time on that matter.

Also, he recently added a new tactic. He told a story of a man who, when the name was called, said nothing, but simply stood up, walked through the bar, pointed to the judge and said "I do not recognize you", then, before the judge could continue, did the same to the bailiff, the two plantiff attorneys and even the court reporter and left. Apparently, the judge called him later and he answered " I do not understand what you are saying" several times until they eventually sent him a notice that the case was ruled in his favor with prejudice.

Also, he mentioned that you should always answer "I do not understand your question" or "I do not understand what you are saying". He said to never say you understand, but just don't agree, but always say that you don't understand.

If someone has a copy of Black's law dictionary, could you look up the legal definition of 'recognize' and post it?

I'm not sure how accurate this info is, but it sounded good at the time.

Update, from Bouvier's online law dictionary:

RECOGNITION, contracts. An acknowledgment that something which has been done
by one man in the name of another, was done by authority of the latter.
2. A recognition by the principal of the agency of another in the
particular instance, or in similar instances, is evidence of the authority
of the agent, so that the recognition may be either express or implied. As
an instance of an implied recognition may be mentioned the case of one who
subscribes policies in the name of another and, upon a loss happening, the
latter pays the amount. 1 Camp. R. 43, n. a; 1 Esp. Cas. 61; 4 Camp. R. 88.