Courtroom Judges Lie

[BADecker]

Plea of Guilty - Tool For Getting Tickets Kicked Out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNuFxsBow8k


This is a  a tool I've been using for years and it has proven to be very effective.  With the unsigned plea of guilty you'll be able to get judges  to commit three major fundamental fairness/due process violations at an arraignment in less than three minutes (this does not mean a ticket will always get kicked).  This is evidence the courts are run by criminals.  We can predict their behavior and replicate results regardless of political boundaries.  A template is available for download at my website.  Please make sure you edit it appropriately if you intend on using it.

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.

If you do plan on using this in court, please let me know by email and calling into the show.

http://marcstevens.net

https://www.youtube.com/user/nostateproject/videos

----------

What do you think?

[Call me Fada]

  If we must be honest enough we know court room judges lie at times or should I say most times? Well let me leave that answer to you I think for a fact that the jury sometimes lower their standards by collecting cheap or handful offers to lie at the courthouse because most jury’s are money minded they are all about the profits and not the losses. The fate of the jury has been questioned a thousand times on our media do for me I do subscribe to this plea of guilty tool, it won’t be a bad idea if given a trial.

[Smartvirus]

First of all, we must recognise that these judges are humans and in most cases they are not witnesses to whatever is being tried to point or spot out a crime being committed in the courtroom. Its an attempt and it would not always be right at times. Sometimes being humans, our emotions come in to complicate things and interfere with the way judgements are being delivered. Surely they are trained and experience have thought them how to manage this but, we can't deny the fact that it does exists and there are chances of a judge giving in. This is  why the rulings can vary from judges to judges in cases of an appeal.

Where it becomes so evident of a  lie are in cases where there is a bribe involved and its most difficult to establish the situation of a bribe.
So, the judges can only do as much as they could and sometimes, out of the most honest attempt of the process comes a hard mistake. I bet you, there are those that are always going to be in favour or against any ruling on a case either,  it was just or unjust. Where you stand makes the difference. It doesn't make you a just man either, neither do I object to the fact that, judges can deliberately lie in court triers.

[BADecker]

First of all, we must recognise that these judges are humans and in most cases they are not witnesses to whatever is being tried to point or spot out a crime being committed in the courtroom. Its an attempt and it would not always be right at times. Sometimes being humans, our emotions come in to complicate things and interfere with the way judgements are being delivered. Surely they are trained and experience have thought them how to manage this but, we can't deny the fact that it does exists and there are chances of a judge giving in. This is  why the rulings can vary from judges to judges in cases of an appeal.

Where it becomes so evident of a  lie are in cases where there is a bribe involved and its most difficult to establish the situation of a bribe.
So, the judges can only do as much as they could and sometimes, out of the most honest attempt of the process comes a hard mistake. I bet you, there are those that are always going to be in favour or against any ruling on a case either,  it was just or unjust. Where you stand makes the difference. It doesn't make you a just man either, neither do I object to the fact that, judges can deliberately lie in court triers.

Marc doesn't mean anything about judges lying about the formal points of the case at hand. What Marc means is that the whole process that the judge does is a lie. It's something like this.

We have the Constitution,
and the operation of what
the Constitution says has
developed into court rules
and procedures... which
are found in the various
Rules of Court books.

Over the years the ways the
judges have developed their
use of court rules, bypasses
the court rules and the law
and even the Constitution
some of the time. It could
be called, "court policy."

Through extensive study
Marc and his people have
gone through the Constitution,
the laws, and the court rules,
and have found that court
policy does not legally use
what court rules say it should,
or even what Constitution
and laws say.

Possibly the biggest infraction
against laws and Constitution
is that laws and Constitution
say "innocent until proven guilty."
This is supposed to be at the
foundation of the courts and
courtroom procedure. But the
judges operate as though they
were following the policy of
"guilty until proven innocent."