First Thing You Should Always Do In Court

In no way shape or form am I giving you legal advice. I am simply telling you what might be in your best interest for your own personal freedom. We have to keep in mind that basic law, and I mean basic, concludes:
 
Without a valid “cause of action” there’s no corpus delicti. If there’s no corpus delicti a case has no standing. There are numerous cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff has no standing.
 
In order to have a corpus delicti a case requires a valid “cause of action.” A valid cause of action requires three elements. The three elements are: 1) a violation of a legal right, 2) damage or injury, 3) redress-ability by the court.
 
I think we can all agree that unless there is an actual victim of a crime, no crime can actually exist. Its impossible. If there is no damage property, legal rights taken, or hurting of another person, no real crime has occurred. The reality is it’s not against the LAW to run a stop sign. The pavement, sidewalk, or “state” are not a victim of you passing by a red sign. On the contrary, it is against the law to run a stop sign and smash into someones car or run someone over.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is that no matter how many laws are on the books, you will always have criminals. Criminal literally means someone that breaks the law… even if you have one million laws it will have no effect on a criminal. Laws are merely allusions of safety created by those in power to create the delusion of government to manipulate and control by violence and force to keep their position of power.
 
Back to the original topic at hand, the first thing you might want to do in any court case, trial, ect. is challenge jurisdiction. Why would a group of men have authority to subject you to codes and rules without your consent? It makes no sense. On the contrary, if I were to take away your freedom of movement, your possessions, take your car, ect. It would be considered a crime. Why do you consider it good when the “government” does it and bad when the “private individual” does it? This is the indoctrination of statism.
 
To put things into perspective:
 
The distinction between a tort and a crime lies in the difference between the methods by which the remedy for the wrong is pursued; a wrong for which the remedy is pursued by, and at the discretion of, the individual injured or his representative is a tort, and a wrong for which the wrongdoer is proceeded against by the sovereign or state for the purpose of punishment is a crime.”  Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol 22, page 26 (2006 ed).  Supporting citations from text:
 
Ind-State ex rel Johnson v. White Circuit Court, 225 Ind 602, 77 N.E.2d 298…Mich.-People v. Veenstra, 337 Mich. 427, 60 N.W.2d 309…Pa.-Com. v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297, 450 A.2d 689…Ala.-Holland v. State, 440 So.2d 1236…N.J.- Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N.J. L. 438, 47 A. 649…N.C.-State Highway and Public Works Comm. v. Cobb, 215 N.C. 556, 2 SE2d 565
 
Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction over subject matter where none exists Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So 2d 179 (Fla 1994) In re D.N.H.W., 955 So 2d 1236 (Fla 2d DCA 2007); and subject-matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on court by consent of parties MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So 2d 32, 35 (Fla 4th DCA 2000) 4. This Court has dismissed similar claims with the right to Amend the Complaint in HSBC Bank USA, etc. v Boone, Walton County 08 CA 557 and Lasalle Bank, etc. v. Schumacher, et al, Walton County 09 CA 247. WHEREFORE, Carroll requests that the court enter an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without Prejudice; and granting such other or further relief as is appropriate.
 
Rules Of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” 2. The dismissal of action or claim for failure of an adverse party to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the Court operates as an adjudication on the merits. Cash vs. Airport Mini-Storage, 782 SO.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
 
Fraud on the court” con­sists of conduct: (1) on part of officer of the court, (2) that is directed to judicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. (Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing denied, certiorari denied Rison v. Demjanjuk, 115 S.Ct. 295, 513 U.S. 914, 130 L.Ed.2d 205 (Ohio) 1993.—Fed Civ Proc 2654.“. . .errors are so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful, if not futile.” (Salvatore v. State of Florida, 366 So. 2d 745 [Fla. 1978], cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1979]).
 
Are you mad after reading this? You should be. These people have been taking advantage of you for years but aren’t you to blame as well? You didn’t read the fine print. Even on the DMV registration paperwork it reads that you are indeed consenting over your vehicle to the government and it is now a motor vehicle under their authority. They have openly admitted that income taxes are voluntary, always have been. I hope you have started to see why it might be in your best interest to challenge jurisdiction. Have you been consenting away your freedom this entire time? Willfully? Perhaps its time to start looking a bit closer.
 

First Thing You Should Always Do In Court

Political correctness is nothing less than thought control!

My Adventures – FreedomSalvationBusiness Help

(Every time you share this article a feminist shaves her head and a statist gets arrested)

Leave a Reply

28 Comments on "First Thing You Should Always Do In Court"

avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Tom
Guest
Tom

Very informative article. And as the saying goes “If you don’t know your rights, then you have no rights”. There are some basic rights that we all have – even when dealing with the court system. But we have to be knowledgeable in what they are and how to exercise them as this article clearly points out.

Uly
Guest
Uly

In TV shows and movies, courtrooms do seem like a venue of fairness. Real life isn’t so noble though. The best lawyers cost more money. Thus, the one with the most money has a higher chance of winning. Therefore, if you’re poor, make sure that you never have to sue rich people.

Truman
Guest
Truman

Funny I should stumble upon this! My girl and I just watched Legally Blonde! Watching those courtroom videos, I think what one should always do in court is to listen and observe more than talk.

Lucy
Guest
Lucy

So it’s clear that the court of law just like other courts. It’s a place where people can play the games and somehow the rich one or the one who has powerful sponsor tends to be the winner.

Cherryna
Guest
Cherryna

I have never interested about law things. But the way you write this convinces me to read till the end. Very informative.

Mico Robin
Guest
Mico Robin

I have never been in court before thank god. I will keep this in mind if ever i get into one.

Miaka Yuuki
Guest
Miaka Yuuki

I have always been curious if courts are as dramatic as they are in TV. Thanks for this

Jackson
Guest
Jackson

Very, very enlightening. Tough read but quite good actually. Even non-lawyers can appreciate this article.

Satish
Guest
Satish

That last comment really had me thinking. Taxes are voluntary? Our cars are under the government’s whims? Something’s not right here.

Quinton
Guest
Quinton

I think the law and the whole judicial system is a joke in the U.S. There’s cases where they locked people up for years for selling weed, yet let others walk away with cold-blooded murder, included cops! It’s a corrupt and unfair system to say the least!

Sully
Guest
Sully

The first thing anyone should do before going to court is to pray! For understanding, for patience, for the strength to endure headache-inducing discussions, and so on… For atheists however, just hope for the best… Don’t like courts except the ones where i can play tennis, badminton, basketball, volleyball…

Tony
Guest
Tony

It’s good that you mentioned to challenge jurisdiction. Many accused are afraid to do this. But I think if you do it in a firm yet respectful manner, it just might help your case. Better yet, should one’s lawyer be responsible for posing these challenges.

Stu
Guest
Stu

The only courtroom drama I like seeing are those on TV. Otherwise, I’d rather not be invited in one – ever! The details of the things they talk about in such places are just too much for a simpleton like me.

Rolf
Guest
Rolf

Going to court is probably inevitable in a typical modern lifetime. Being called in for jury duty or working there are the only visits to it that I prefer though.

Fran
Guest
Fran

An absolutely controversial point that’ll turn heads wherever it’s preached but I admit you make good, valid points. It’s amazing how your analysis ties up some loose ends regarding law and its principles without making my head spontaneously combust. I think I’m sharing your piece to an attorney who happens to be a good friend of mine… if you don’t mind!

Benny
Guest
Benny

I must admit, this was a difficult but very interesting read. I’m not well-versed in legalese but you’ve made sensible points. I never would’ve looked at this whole legal premise differently without your post.

Well done, sir.

Hari Priya
Guest
Hari Priya

I have not ben into law much before now the world has changed a lot and we are living in a time where we can buy anything with money. We can buy laws, buy the advocates and even judges to escape the criminal. After reading your article I have a much deeper insight and I am eager to know more about the hidden facts that lie in my jurisdiction. Thank you for the insight.

Rebi
Guest
Rebi

Nice insight especially those who have not been there before.

Marco
Guest
Marco

Jurisdiction is a thorny issue. If a court has been designated to try special cases, like drugs, but the person involved is a public official, can that court have jurisdiction? Or will the case go to another court that tries public officials?

Chuck
Guest
Chuck

Very enlightening! Thank you for simplifying this. I am no lawyer or student of law but the way you explained it is very easy to understand.

Alex Summers
Guest
Alex Summers

My Aunt use to tell me that in the US people can be a jury in courts. I have never been one but it can be a good experience.

Scott Summers
Guest
Scott Summers

I Have never been an expert in law before, Reading topics such as this provides me with insight. Thanks

T Joe David
Guest
T Joe David

You know what … In my country, how a daughter has sued her mother to court, for the house that has long been occupied by her mother. And how a son has sued his mother to court for stealing property belonging to him. I don’t think I need to explain in detail here … The point is that the world is getting crazy !!! And all about money, property… They have forgotten, how they could be born in this world … lol

Lisa Nataliany
Guest
Lisa Nataliany

Yes, with the money … you can buy everything in this world. All rules / laws and courts can be set according to your wishes. You can set a process of any court like you as a film director.. Oh my love – money… lol

Danny Luei
Guest
Danny Luei

The court is a joke… The law was sharply down but blunt upwards. In my opinion, this may apply same everywhere. That’s the world…

Oswald
Guest
Oswald

And it’s stuff like this that make me glad to have a lawyer in the family. Simpletons like me can’t handle such complications. This seem like an interesting read, but I have to admit I gotta forward this to me brother to explain to me for better understanding…

traveltime
Guest
traveltime

Where is the evidence they have jurisdiction? Where are the facts they have jurisdiction? No one can ever answer these questions…. except the statist that believes in authority! Or the right to be a slave.