Hmmm, I'm sure it'll work this time

[Skeptic]

Maybe I'm cynical, but the questions from the public to SuiJuris in this forum seem to follow a predictable course:

"Help, I've gotten a traffic ticket / problem with family court / tax problems / criminal indictment. What do I do?"

"Do THIS and win!"

"Help, I did THIS and I lost the case / lost custody / got my car and home repossesed by the IRS / am in jail. How do I take revent on the judge?"

"Do THAT and they will fire the ILLEGAL JUDGE who ignored our theories!"

"Help, I did THAT and the judge was not fired / censured / even noticed that I destroyed his career. He's still hearing cases. I just want my money / children / car / home / freedom back. How do I do it?"

"Do THE OTHER THING and they will HAVE to undo the ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS!"

...and of course THE OTHER THING doesn't work, either.

Question: what do we learn from the above about the efficiency of Sui Juris' advice in the real world?

Seemingly there is nothing available on the suijuris forum that would be of benefit to people like you. Obviously you already know the answers and are only here to offer the obvious cynicism and the more obvious trivialization of the matters that are being discussed.

What really puzzles me is this. If you already know what to expect from the suijuris forum and similar forums, then why do you waste your time in visiting such places? Would it not be more beneficial to you to hang out on forums that are full of Bar certified attorneys? Or perhaps a site entitled www.iloveamericanslavery.com ?

Jerry.

No ‘jam’ today Skeptic?

"It's very good jam," said the Queen.?
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."?
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said.
"The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day."?
"It must come sometimes to "jam to-day,""Alice objected.?
"No it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day; to-day isn't any other day, you know."?
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing."?
Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
?"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
?"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
? Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

"Do THIS and win!"

A man, accused of a victumless crime, can no more "win" in court,

than a deer can "win" during hunting season.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

I am so sick of ppl smearing and running a campaign against this website and slandering it. Im so sick of the rat fink b@st@rds railing against the truth and honesty of those who want out from under there cr@ppy system of phony laws. I will add what i can to bring the bloody system down to its knees and for those who hold dear to such lies to wallow in its ashes while the tru republic is restored and the corrupt lawys and public officials are whipped out of the country and sent back to their masters. cowering in fear from the Truth and justice that will be AMerica once again.

[squirrel]

What do dear hunting and the fraudulent nature of liars, magistrates, and court clerks have in common ?.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ambush

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Akira

A man, accused of a victumless crime, can no more "win" in court,

than a deer can "win" during hunting season.
Akira

You guys remind me of the old joke about a Vermont farmer:

--"John, when your horse was sick last year, what did you give it?"
--"I fed it seasame oil".
--"John, I gave my horse seasame oil and it died."
--"Yeah, mine too."

In your case, it goes like this:

--"Sui Juris, when you tried to beat a traffic ticket last year, what did you argue in court?"
--"We argued the court has no juristriction over us."
--"Sui Juris, I argued in court that they have no juristriction and ended up with both a trial and a force psychiatric evaluation."
--"Yeah, so did we."

What I mean, Akira, is this: if you guys KNOW the system is corrupt and evil and will ignore the arguments you present, why don't you TELL the person who asks you for advice it won't work BEFORE they try it in court and lose???

[Mutt]

The first thing you have to learn is the law. You can't just take someone else's work and apply it in your situation. FIrst you have to distinguish the facts, the you must find the argument that supports your sause and backit up with some kind of authority (i.e., caselaw, or constitutional protections.)

The second, and most imprtant thing, is to realize that these days, while the law may be the law, public policy generally rules in the form of jusicial prejudice, or lawmaking. If you are not prepared to go to the appellate from the start you have already lost. The next thing to remember is that when in the lower court everything you are doing is merely making a record to preserve for the appellate. So, make ALL your arguments clear, ahrp, and cogent.

Know the law, it is the path to success.

Mutt

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by handofdespair

I am so sick of ppl smearing and running a campaign against this website and slandering it. Im so sick of the rat fink b@st@rds railing against the truth and honesty of those who want out from under there cr@ppy system of phony laws. I will add what i can to bring the bloody system down to its knees and for those who hold dear to such lies to wallow in its ashes while the tru republic is restored and the corrupt lawys and public officials are whipped out of the country and sent back to their masters. cowering in fear from the Truth and justice that will be AMerica once again.

Yeah yeah yeah, sure, whatever.

Still, the point stands: your "ticket beating", "court challenging", "tax protesting" strategies NEVER, EVER, WORK. I mean, take the "traffic ticket slaying" nonsense which is, in effect, nothing more than pissing off the judge in the pre-trial hearing by telling him, "you've got no juristriction over me, neener neener."

People who use this NEVER have their ticket cancelled. They only end up with a trial (Because nobody listens to the nonsense they say about "lack of juristriction") AND a pissed-off judge (because the entire "strategy" is to insult the judge in the pre-trial hearing) AND an almost-automatic conviction (because so much work goes into the "challange the juristriction" nonsense no other defense based on actual facts or laws is prepared for when that doesn't work) AND sometimes even a psychiatric evaluation (because the nonsense they claim makes everybody suspect they're loonies.)

Some strategy.

[Skeptic]

The next thing to remember is that when in the lower court everything you are doing is merely making a record to preserve for the appellate.

Nonsense on stilts, but, even if this were true--the "sui juris" strategy of "challanging the juristriction" NEVER WORKS ON APPEAL EITHER.

First the court ignores you at the pre-trial hearing and sets a trial date anyway, then you spout the same nonsense at the trial instead of having a reasonable defense and get convicted, and then trying to appeal on theory that the court was wrong to say it has juristriction doesn't work either and the conviction stands.

So what's the point?