Tag Archives: trial

The “facts” people get from the news would be laughed out of court, but the masses gobble them up like candy.

 

The press listens attentively while the Pentagon spokeswoman explains how the go 5 big bad terrorists in the last week. 5's a lot!

The white house press is captivated at the briefing by the pentagon spokeswoman’s dramatic tale of how the brave government soldiers saved the unsuspecting towns people from 5 BIG BAD  lone wolf terrorists last week. I overheard the N.Y. Times reporter gasp… 5’s a lot!

Many lay people are fascinated by legal things. Or maybe I should say, things people imagine to be legal things. That’s why our controllers make so many preposterous legal shows and movies. They are dramatic and thrilling and provide an excellent and insidious way to continue the long con they run on everyone about all of the justice and freedom there is. The TV shows and movies bear no resemblance to the reality of the actual “just-a-system” that exists inside the world you inhabit, but then… that’s the whole point of brainwashing, isn’t it?

Today I am going to give you a quick lesson in the law of evidence, gratis. You are going to learn what hearsay actually is. People hear “objection, hearsay” on TV and in movies all the time, but really they have no idea what it is. And, it is my hope, that once you learn what it is, that you will then be able to use that concept in your everyday life to help you negotiate the maze of lies they have you living in.

Technically hearsay is a form of inadmissible evidence. Like speculation, or opinion, or testimony given without a proper “foundation”. If something is “hearsay” then it is NOT admissible evidence. Evidence is supposed to be factual and reliable.

The underlying concepts developed by lawyers over a long period of time can be very useful in thinking about what type of information is reliable factual evidence. The centerpiece of all methods for ferreting out the truth, or more accurately, for ferreting out what is not true, is cross examination.

Ask yourself, would you agree to a trial where you didn’t have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you? I doubt it. That is why you have a constitutional right to face the witnesses against you. And would you trust the results of any trial where the evidence was not cross examined? Again, I doubt it.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret document showing some of the planning that went on behind the scenes at the NSA. Apparently they are adding some great new characters to the show this season!! Yay, set your DVR.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret story board showing some of the ideas they are floating at the NSA pitch meetings. Apparently they may be adding some great new characters and a touch of romance to the ISIS lineup this season!!  So be sure to set your DVR to find out — on  the news.

The simple reality is that most any “story” can be made to sound pretty damned good…. IF I am not allowed to ask any questions about it. And that, my friend, is the reason that hearsay is not admissible.

Because you can’t cross examine hearsay.

Hearsay is not permitted, because time and experience have shown that evidence that is not subject to cross examination is inherently unreliable.

Here is working definition of hearsay under the rules of evidence:
Any out of court statement (this includes the information in documents) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

It may look simple but it is not. They spend weeks examining it in law school evidence class. It is subtle. Now there are a lot of minor exceptions to the “hearsay rule” but those exceptions can be summarized generally as follows, official records, statements against interest, and “excited utterances”. We’re not going to get into them. We’re just going to cover the basics and show you how to apply the concept of hearsay to the matrix around you.

The tricky part to determining whether something is in fact hearsay is that the out of court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  MOST out of court statements are NOT hearsay. Let me show you what the difference is with an example.

The witness testifies that, “Billy said he closed the garage door‘.

So, is that hearsay? On TV, sure it is. But the fact is you CAN’T KNOW if something is hearsay until you know what the evidence/out-of-court-statement, is being offered to prove. You must always remember THAT.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

Let’s just say the case involves liability for a very cranky old three legged cat having gotten out of the house. And it is suspected that this wonderful creature may have gone out through the garage when the door was left open. Can the above testimony be “offered” to prove that the garage door was in fact closed? NO. That would be hearsay.

But the testimony could be used if it was offered to explain why the witness hadn’t checked to see that the garage was closed before he left. Do you see the difference?

In the first instance it is hearsay because it is offered to prove “the matter asserted” in the statement, namely, that the garage door was in fact closed. But in the next instance it is being used to show a state of mind for the actual witness. Whether the garage door was or was not in fact closed is not relevant.

All that is relevant is that the witness CLAIMS he heard Billy make the statement. NOT that the statement he claims to have heard is/was true. So you can cross examine the witness on whether it is believable that he in fact heard the statement, and whether he actually believed the statement, and whether he acted consistently with someone who had heard and believed such a statement from Billy.

Do you see the difference? It is subtle and it can be quite confusing. Don’t feel bad if you don’t quite see it, most lawyers don’t even understand the distinction. Like most people, they just think that any out of court statement is hearsay, but it’s not.

This type of "proof" has lost favor in most jurisdictions, but I have heard that the evil muslim radicalized lone wolf extremists still use this method!!

This type of “evidence” has lost favor in most western jurisdictions, but I heard someone on FOX news report that the White House says that it is still used in traditional sharia law  where they have evil muslim homegrown radicalized lone wolf extremists waiting to destroy our way of life!! 

You have to ask what it is being offered to prove. And if you can cross examine the witness on the reason for why it is being offered, then it is probably NOT hearsay.

Think of it like this. If the witness is there to prove that the garage door was closed, then he has to testify about that fact. He could testify that he saw it closed. Or that he heard it close. Those would not be direct evidence that Billy closed it. Maybe an inference from circumstances could be drawn, but not direct evidence of who closed it, just that it was closed.

So if the main issue was whether Billy closed it and all you had was the witness saying that he heard Billy say he closed it, well, that’s hearsay, it doesn’t come in.
Do you see how it all comes down to the ability to cross examine the witness on the evidence the witness is offering?

A witness can be questioned on whether he actually heard a statement made or whether the witness was mistaken about that or is in fact lying about what he heard IF ANYTHING. But you can’t cross a witness on whether or not the door was in fact closed by Billy if all he knows is that he heard Billy say he closed it. Got it?

Evidence is about facts. A witness needs to say what he knows, not repeat what someone else said to show something is true. If the basis for a witness’ knowledge about something is that he heard someone say it, well, that ain’t Jack S**t. That is hearsay. If what someone  said is the evidence you want to bring that something “is” true, then you need to bring in THAT person and let me cross examine them about the BASIS for their statement. That is the distinction.

You may have to re-read it and think about it a bit. It is complex. But the distinction is vital in assessing information that comes at you all the time.

I objected to the picture the government produced to finger my client, on the grounds that it might be photoshopped but the judge denied my objection saying that the government's word of the picture's authenticity was good enough.

I objected to the picture the government produced on the grounds that it might have been photo-shopped so I should have a right to examine it and the person who took the picture.  The judge denied my objection saying that  having it appear on a government website was proof enough of the picture’s authenticity so it was coming in.  The judge said that in this post 911 world that if I didn’t believe the government then maybe I was a terrorist too!

Congratulations, you may have just learned something that less than 1% of the population understands.

Once you see the distinction and grasp what hearsay actually is, then it should be clear why no thinking person should accept HEARSAY to form a firm opinion on anything. It defies logic to do so because there is no way to know if the information you are relying on is true e.g. that Billy in fact closed the door, because the information has not been “examined”.

Now of course the reality is that the world is overflowing with hearsay. And everyone loosely relies on it out of necessity for many things. And that’s fine. The world you live in is not a court room and you can’t expect to live by the rules of evidence. That would be absurd. 

But what you can and must keep in mind is that if the only evidence you have would be considered hearsay, THEN you need to be WARY of the reliability of any conclusions you draw because you don’t have ANY EVIDENCE. So your opinion should remain very flexible because your opinion is based on crap.

Naturally, the reality with people is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it should be. And of course our controllers know this and they take advantage of the people through this. The people tend to treat all information equally. Or even worse, they OVER weight the least reliable hearsay information just because they saw it on TV or read it in what they have been TOLD is a “respected” journal or newspaper etc.

In fact most people form almost all of their opinions of the world on nothing but rank hearsay twice removed. (meaning hearsay on top of hearsay!) People gobble up whatever their favorite “trusted” mouthpiece says. And they base their opinions on information that would NEVER EVEN BE ALLOWED IN as evidence in a legitimate proceeding.

Now I want to give you a bit of insight into how much of your world view has been built on this type of “information”. Let me take apart just one simple example of a very common piece of “news” you might hear or see and show you how ridiculously UNRELIABLE it is and how totally INADMISSIBLE it would be. Then you can see what I mean and you will see hopefully by analogy, how much of your world is just a concoction. No evidence at all for any of it.

Here reporters risk their very lives to bring the viewer the latest news footage from the naval tensions with China. Thrilling TV footage. Our brave troops were victorious once again!

Here a scene is shown from recently declassified pentagon footage of recent naval action in the South China Sea. Reporters  risk their lives to bring viewers footage like this and to get the story.  They said  that Our brave troops were victorious once again!  Freedom is safe for another day.  

And just so we’re clear, there is no official records exceptions to cover un-checkable nonsense like I’m about to give. So we can eliminate that.

You are watching TV and they show a clip of the white house press secretary making an announcement that the pentagon is saying that a top ISIS leader has been taken out in a drone strike. Then the hosts and guests begin to discuss the “implications” of such a thing.

Can you spot the incredible number of hearsay problems with this situation?

The white house spokesperson making the announcement is just reading a statement he or someone else wrote. The spokesman tells us it is based upon information they were given. How do we know they didn’t make the entire thing up? OR that the person who gave the information to them just made the information up? We don’t. We don’t know if they were even given any information let alone the information they are telling us. Do you see?

That is how fundamentally flawed the “statement” as evidence is and why it would never be allowed IN to any serious fact finding venue to “prove” that some ISIS leader had in fact been killed in a drone strike. AND why you should be very wary of trusting such information to form your opinion!!  It is useless hearsay, nothing more.

At a minimum we need to see the reports upon which the statements are based and find out who wrote them so we can question THAT person. But we NEVER do see the reports. The government cloaks everything behind a veil of “national security”.  Isn’t that convenient?

Yet people act as though this type of silliness from the news and government is the holy of holies of information. I mean “my god man, the white house announced IT!!!” lol Such nonsense would be laughed out of court.

Here an artists renders the scene where only the top reporters get their information. You must be very advanced in the profession to even be allowed access to this sacred place.

Here an artist renders the holy of holies – the reporters briefing room at the pentagon.  Average people could never understand the information the chosen ones are given here directly. The government and the reporters must work together to interpret the information so they can then give it to the people.   They have gotten quite adept at GIVING IT to the people.

Now let’s continue analyzing the “statement”. Right off the bat we know that the “pentagon” can’t say anything. Only a specific person at the pentagon can say anything. So again, without the ability to find out WHO at the pentagon allegedly provided the information — so we can at least go CROSS examine THEM — we are truly in the never-never land of untrustworthy UNTESTABLE information.

In a trial, you can’t just wheel someone in and have them make statements about something called ISIS and its “leader” having been “killed”. You have to bring EVIDENCE that can be cross examined. How do we know who was killed? How do we know anyone was killed? How do we know what if any connection they had to something called “ISIS”. We don’t.

At trial, in order to allow evidence in for any of what we heard in the press secretary’s statement there would first have to be a foundation laid to identify what “ISIS” is, who is in it and how we know who their leaders are. And that information all has to be from someone with actual knowledge of each of those pieces of information and each of those people have to be subject to cross examination.

But the public has never gotten that. And we never will! All the public EVER gets about anything of substance is just an amorphous blob of innuendo, speculation and hearsay hidden behind the protective and convenient veil of “national security”. Thus people imagine ISIS to be whatever they want or “fear” it might be. “Membership” in ISIS is no different than a slogan like “hope and change”. It is meaningless because it means something different to everyone.

Think of all the hearsay problems with just trying to “confirm” some ISIS leader was IN FACT killed. Who ID’d the body? Who has actual knowledge that he was “a leader”. Who has actual knowledge of how he died? Do you see?

Think how many ways the “information” from the press secretary could be picked apart in a murder trial by defense counsel. Think how ludicrous it is to trust such a sweeping completely unsubstantiated statement to make “decisions” about whether we should “bomb the country back into the stone age”!! lol

I think it's pretty clear what she stands for. She fights for us! I know she does, because I saw it right there.

What do you mean how do I know what she stands for?  She fights for us! I saw it right there.  And she said it. Plus I got a bumper sticker that says the same thing.  So sure I believe it.  Why wouldn’t I? I mean if it wasn’t true everyone would know right?

All you actually have in that example I gave you is some political hack at a podium making a statement. That is actually all you have. You have ZERO FACTS to support the truth of what he said.

How much validity or credence should a rational person give to such a statement to accept that a “leader of ISIS” was killed in a drone strike by the U.S.? None.

Without the ability to cross examine you have to TRUST. You are not going “trust” the government witnesses against you in a trial if you are charged with murder are you? Of course not, you are going to demand your right to cross examine them, because Cross is the only way to find out whether what someone is saying holds up to scrutiny! But we never get that scrutiny with government information or news. Hell we don’t even get to cross examine the person making the hearsay statements let alone the actual witnesses we NEED access to! Lol So it is crap.

Now if you want to consider the press secretary’s statement for purposes OTHER THAN the FACT that some ISIS leader was supposedly killed in a drone strike by the U.S. well… that is fine. THAT makes sense. Because that is NOT hearsay.

There is nothing unreasonable about considering the statement to be evidence that the  government wants to continue to create the appearance of a “war on terror”, or that the president is trying to deflect attention from his signing of some bogus executive order. Or maybe someone in the government wanted the guy killed because he knew something he shouldn’t and now they are covering their tracks by making this ISIS story up. Or maybe it was all a mistake. Or maybe NOTHING at all even happened and the guy they said they “killed” and was a “terrorist” is a gyro salesman obliviously vacationing in Cabo. We don’t KNOW.  Analyzing the statement LIKE THAT makes sense, BECAUSE it isn’t hearsay for THOSE purposes. Get it?

I could do the same analysis with basically any information we are given from “the news”. It is virtually all nothing more than repeating something some government spokesman or report claims to have found, or telling you what someone else told the reporter. Totally useless hearsay.

An early lesson most people just don't ever learn when it comes to their own lives.

An early lesson most people never learn how to actually apply in their lives.

The dirty unspoken secret is that News and government “information” relies almost 100% upon a TRUST by the people that the newsmen and governments do not deserve to be given. Trust is something that is earned. It is something you give a friend or family member you know and who has a reason to be honest with you. Trust is something that is given to someone who would bear the brunt of violating that trust.

The news and the government have NONE of those qualities and risk nothing by lying. They just make up more lies to cover their lies when they are caught because there is NEVER any outside investigation of the government. Only the government is allowed access to the people and information that is necessary to investigate the government. And only the news “investigates” the news. Do you see that?

You can’t be a rational person and “trust” a government spokesman or some Brian Williams or Dan Rather type character who claims he has gotten information from some unnamed source within some organization. THAT type of trust makes NO SENSE. There is no basis for it. In fact there is a huge amount of evidence to show they cannot be trusted. But still the fools trust.

The sad fact is that we can’t know if even one tiny bit of  whether most things that parade around as “news” are true. Not one stinking thing. All we know is that they are reporting that something happened. What happened, if anything, is something you have to use your own brain and experience to try and figure out. Not just accept what they say. That is silly.

Yet the masses run around and argue with each other about “reports’ and “facts” given to them by the government and the news about things that supposedly “happen” all over the world. They have built whole industries on this nonsense! The people in the “news and commentary” business argue about all of these “events” and imagine that they “have” all sorts of “details” about who did it and why and who they were connected to and on and on.

The reality is that all of these “experts” and analysts and commentators are just arguing about a bedtime STORY that was released by the government. A story so unreliable that a jury would never even be allowed to hear it. Not even reliable enough to “let the jury decide for itself”. Just think about that.

That is the actual quality of the information the people “get” from the news and their government. Rank Hearsay. But the conditioning and brainwashing are so deep, the people can’t see this. And the entire rickety broken ass system relies completely on this illusion. Just a grand sleight of hand over the population. And they gobble it up!! lol

Now there is someone that understands ironic humor.

I was thumbing through this textbook and I came across this graphic describing journalism’s sacred role in a free society and how the people depend on the press. It really made an impact on me.  The press deserves my appreciation. They keep the government honest you know. 

I find it particularly funny that political operatives and mainstream newsmen have some of the lowest credibility ratings whenever supposed polls are done, right down there with used car salesmen and lawyers! Yet people nonetheless continue to imagine that they are “informing themselves” by watching the “news” or reading the NY times or “the economist” or waiting to find out what their favorite commentator has to say about the latest “news”. My god the idiocracy.

And I laugh extra hard at lawyers who fall into all of this, and they do. Oh believe me they do. THEY should know better. It is a bunch of useless hearsay for gods sake. It is crap!

Well I am about done. Maybe now that you understand what you are looking right at, you will get a kick out of how insidious and prevalent hearsay is. It is everywhere. And maybe you will rethink some of the things you thought you “knew were facts”.

The fact is that we don’t know Richard, lol. We get told a lot of stuff from cradle to grave and most of it is just hearsay. It is up to each of us to use our brains. Those in charge know that isn’t going to happen, and they take advantage of that.

I hope that understanding what hearsay actually is and why it is not admissible helps you.

I have to run, I just remembered that I taped the “No Spin Zone” last night and I need to go watch it to find out what’s happening in the world and what I should think. lol

Take care, move towards the light, and tell someone the truth about the law. Oh and enjoy my new pic of Legalman.

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

The little case that threatened the entire Banking system.

Just FYI, this is what an actual coincidence looks like.

Just FYI, this is what an actual coincidence looks like.

I want to tell you about a simple little case from an obscure little court, where the findings and verdict posed such a danger to the money power, that they tried to prevent the judge from even entering the verdict. He refused. One week later the judge had an “unfortunate” fishing accident and died.

As for the lawyer/individual who brought the case and won it to the jury? Well he was coincidentally disbarred. Oh and the case findings? they were “nullified” on procedural grounds because well, “that’s the law”. And now of course, any lawyer who attempts to cite the case, well, they too face sanctions and possible disbarment by the “licensing” system the government runs that “allows” them to operate in the “legal system” the government runs. Remember, it is all just “following the law”.  What, do you not “support law and order”? You probably hate kittens too then.

So what in the world could the case have stood for that made the system react so violently? Simple. It exposed the truth about the banking system in a simple and straightforward way that allowed anyone to understand the fraud that it is. 

And, just as importantly, it showed how the people could defend themselves. 

Chomsky quoteBefore I tell you about “The Credit River Case” I want to make sure you understand the legal issue.  In order to have a contract even the NSA admits you need the following.
At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

This just means the parties have to discuss terms, come to agreement on the terms and then we both have to be OBLIGATED to exchange something of value. The something of value is called “consideration” in the law. Here, from the same NSA link, is what they say about that.

Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act, when one is privileged to do so, such as an adult refraining from smoking. This thing of value or forbearance from some legal right is considered to be a legal detriment. In the exchange of legal detriments, a bargain is created.

It's so beautiful isn't it? Here is another legally binding contract where it is difficult to determine whether the "consideration" was valid.

It’s so beautiful isn’t it? Here is an excellent example of a legally binding contract where it can be difficult to determine whether the “consideration” was valid, and what the exact terms were.

So not only do we have to agree to the exchange, but you have to each exchange something of value that is considered a “legal detriment”. It must be real. If you pay me with counterfeit money, well, the contract “fails for lack of consideration”, in legal terminology. You “gave me” something that “was not real and not what we discussed” so I didn’t get the “benefit of the bargain”  That is really all contract law is, a formal discussion of agreements between people.

So now with that legal understanding, let’s look at the  “Credit River Case”.  I encourage you to go look at all of the paperwork yourself if you are interested go to page and search the link for credit river docs mid page.

The case is straightforward.  The Bank/Plaintiff was trying to foreclose, and the property owner/Defendant was defending the action claiming that there was no valid consideration given by the bank under the contract because it simply created the “money” that it “gave” by making a bookkeeping entry. Here is how the court described it.

Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff (Bank)  and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.   Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession …by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed….

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.

The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan (the Bank’s only witness) admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this.

"Owned", hmmm, exactly how did they buy that again?

“Owned”, hmmm, exactly what did they use to buy it with again?  I’m a bit unclear on that.

So a straightforward simple case with very straightforward allegations.  The case was tried to a jury.  They found against the bank.  Basically finding that the bank WAS NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION because it hadn’t given ANY CONSIDERATION when it made the mortgage!!  

Here is the short memorandum opinion that the court entered into the record with the order after the trial.  The order the powers that be did everything they could to prevent the judge from entering.

MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing….

Plaintiff’s (Bank’s) act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built….

Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fitNo complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury.

Now that gives me an idea.

Banker’s are hardly man’s best friend.

And that is the case and the opinion that quite literally set off a sh**storm.  Why? Because it very simply explained the fraud that is Banking.  And when given the undisputed facts, the jury had quite RIGHTLY found that there is no actual consideration given by the Bank because the bank just creates the money out of thin air. It doesn’t actually LEND MONEY IT HAS so the contract is not valid!

Do you see how dangerous this case is?  Under no circumstances can these ideas become known or discussed openly as anything even POSSIBLY legitimate.  It Had to be “erased” and found to be “kookery”.

Think of the implications otherwise.   A jury of regular people had been told the truth about what banks clearly do EVERYDAY and they saw that it is nothing but fraud. Nobody has agreed to allow banks to create money out of thin air.  The mortgages and other loans the bank’s make do not have any actual consideration!

Most people in the country assume that when someone borrows money from a bank that the bank is actually lending you some of the money that it has on deposit. But that is just not true under the fractional reserve system we have.  And if people understood this undeniable fact, as Henry Ford said, there would be a revolution overnight.  And so those in charge make sure nobody does find out.

The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled.”—John Kenneth Galbraith

The law quite literally gives a protected class of private individuals, “central bankers”, (and their facilitators) the right to create money out of thin air, and then to “lend out” the made up money and collect interest on it.  You have to work. They do not.

An honest thief, Josiah Stamp

An honest thief, Josiah Stamp

“The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” — Josiah Stamp Former Director of the Bank of England

The poor soon to be dead judge in this case clearly was a man of principle.  He believed the big lie he had been told about our country and the founding documents and our supposed “freedom”.  He believed the system was what he had been taught.  He was sadly mistaken and apparently paid for that mistake with his life in the form of a fishing accident.

The modern banker plying his craft.

The modern banker plying his craft.

There are two basic types of control systems. Overt systems,  meaning openly with force or threats, and covert systems, enforced, by way of disguise or in secret. In an OVERT system of control, the people CAN SEE the force used to keep them down, like in North Korea.  Therefore they KNOW that the legal system is rigged against them.  In a covert system the people are tricked into imagining they are in control and that therefore the legal system is “fair”. That is the key difference.

Our system is a covert system.  Therefore the ENTIRE system relies upon the people believing that they are in charge of the system, that the system works for them and that it is fair.

One of the most difficult concepts for people to grasp and accept is that the legal system is not there to dispense justice. It is there to control you under the GUISE that it is there to dispense justice.

The only obstacle that any covert system faces, such as ours, is making sure the people don’t find out  the TRUTH about the system.  Like the truth that this case exposes. And that is why so much time and money is spent brainwashing people very early on in government schools under government curriculum about justice and liberty and pledges of allegiance, etc. etc. And that is why the media tells us nonstop about how just and wonderful a country we have our whole lives.

So now that you see the reality of the system, let’s recap what happened in this case.  The BANK filed the case in the court. The BANK looked to the Court to take the property.  The bank did not complain it didn’t get a fair trial.  The bank did not complain it was not allowed to put on its evidence. The evidence used by the jury was the BANK’S own witness’ admissions.  The facts of this case were not in dispute! 

And what was the result of all this after the jury found against the bank?  The bank ended up winning “later” on procedural grounds after the judge ended up dead, and the lawyer ended up disbarred.   Do you see the real system yet?

I don't whether to laugh or cry when I see people who are so deluded. They actually think that they have to WAIT for 9 guys and gals to GIVE them their RIGHTS.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I see people who are so deluded. They actually think that they have to WAIT for 9 guys and gals to GIVE them their RIGHTS.

What more does it take for you to see that the Constitution prevents NOTHING!  It is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.  Continuously talking about “getting back to it” and “enforcing it” and “its principles and limitations” just drains off energy that could be used to create REAL change.

If the constitution or the system actually did anything that people imagine, then outcomes like THIS could never happen. And if they did, the people would know about them and those responsible would have been brought to justice.  But none of THAT ACTUALLY happened because that is not what the system ACTUALLY does.

The system is there to control you, but its success depends entirely on you never finding this fact out.

I can’t take anymore freedom today.  Plus there are the limitations of space. There is a lot more to the case that happened afterwards. If you want to find out about it, I wrote about that here.  Because I am done for today. 

I hope you learned something. Take care my brainwashed Brethren.  Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”.  Don’t hate the playa, hate the game. If you like my site then take a second and hit the LIKE button!  Then SHARE it.  You can do it. I have faith in you. It is much appreciated.

 

 

Don’t believe the hype. Jury trials are a sham.

I'm so glad I hired this guy.  This is going to be easy.

I’m so glad I hired this guy. This is going to be easy.

EarPeople in this country have the most romanticized view of what a jury trial is.  Oh, they think they know. They’ve been told what they know. But trust me, they don’t know, but you’re about to find out. I am going to show you the wondrous freedom that actually is a jury trial in this country.

People are told a “jury trial” is one of the key things that separates us from those “unfree” countries where the trials are just state run show trials where you have no real chance.

Let’s take the example of a civil trial. Not even a criminal trial. Let’s just say the government is coming after you for some supposed violation of some supposed “law”. For convenience, let’s just say the IRS is claiming you didn’t pay your “fair share”. They sue people every day you know. They allege that you didn’t obey one or more of the countless impossible to sort out regulations that supposedly control what you “owe”. You disagree.

Relax, he's fine.  Oh... not because he's white.  White people are just as screwed as everyone else.  But he is a member of the QUO.

Relax, he’s fine. Oh… not because he’s white. White people are just as screwed as everyone else. But he is QUO.

What will actually happen? Well, a government worker for the IRS will institute an investigation. Then a government worker, in the form of a prosecutor will take over the case. Then another government investigator will do more investigation. You of course will have to hire your own lawyer and pay him. And of course you are paying your share of the entire government’s bill to prosecute you as well.  Catching a pattern yet?

Let’s just say you managed to avoid a summary judgment filed by the government and you “get to trial”. Now you get to experience the REAL freedom.

Here is the reality. You will be in front of a government paid judge, who can never be fired and who neither you nor any other “citizen” ever got to vote upon. This judge who has a direct conflict of interest will run the trial. Remember he works FOR the entity prosecuting you, which is the US government!

I've considered what you said about the jury trial.  I think I've come up with a better plan.

I’ve considered what you said about the jury trial. I think I’ve come up with a better plan.

Think about that, the judge is actually on the payroll of one of the parties. Does that sound right? Does that sound like you’re going to get a fair deal? Oh, and the prosecutor is paid by the same party that is paying the judge, and that paid the investigators, oh, and the person who brought the complaint. Is this sounding like a kangaroo court yet? Because I wouldn’t freely agree to this arrangement.

This type of blatant conflict of interest is never allowed. Of course a judge can’t sit on a trial where he is employed, or even related to a party to the case. That is the ultimate conflict. But with the government, that doesn’t count. Ahh the freedom.

But it gets way way worse. In federal court, the judge is basically in charge of questioning the jury if that’s what the judge wants to do. The judge in effect weeds out anyone who won’t follow what the judge believes the law is during this process. WTF? Once a jury panel that has shown they will “follow what the judge’s rulings is found”, then the trial begins.

Of course you are free to rule

Let’s get started people.  I’ve got some justice to dispense and I don’t want to miss my squash game this afternoon..

At trial the judge decides who gets to testify. The judge decides who “qualifies” as an expert. So your guy may not get to testify while the government experts come in without any problem. The judge, allows what types of questions can be asked, what documents the jury will be allowed to see. The judge can limit the number of witnesses. The judge can comment on the evidence in front of the jury. That means  that when you or one of your witnesses is testifying, the judge can make it clear to the jury that the judge thinks the testimony is not credible. Yes, the judge. The guy in the robe that everyone is looking to for direction.

Then if you make it through all of that, the judge determines what questions the jury will answer. That’s right, the jury just answers elaborate questions. They don’t decide who should win. They are specifically not supposed to know what the effect of answering the questions is. So they may want you to win and still not answer the questions correctly.

Are you catching on to the freedom yet?

You might be starting to feel that the system is maybe, slightly possibly, a little bit in the government’s favor and kind of rigged against you?  But it isn’t over yet. Even if the jury finds in your favor the judge can issue what is called a JNOV. The judge can just overrule the jury and rule against you.  EXsqueeze me?  Yeah, it’s true.  And don’t forget, the judge can also just order a new trial.

they seem reasonable

Next case.  You are HUMAN, citizen yes? “Umm, yes,”  Human lie.  Judgment for QUO.  I’m not sure, Legalman, but it looks like you might have lost again.

Oh but but but Legalman you can always appeal. Yes, yes you can. You can spend thousands of more dollars to try and convince a “fully independent” panel of yet 3 more government workers you’ve never heard of who you won’t have a choice about, and who aren’t elected and can never be fired, that the other government worker on the same payroll is wrong.  Gotcha.  I forgot all about that right you have.  I’m sure that’s going to work out great.

They can also screw you in what is called an “unpublished” opinion. That  means it cannot be used as precedent in any future case. Basically just a one off deal.  A special, just for you!

Well, since you asked nicely, maybe.

Well, since you asked nicely, maybe.

So if they do that, what chance is there that the star chamber in Washington called the supreme court would take the case? Try zero. They only take cases that matter.  Your unpublished opinion doesn’t “matter” by definition, to anyone but you.  Thanks for playing, and don’t forget to drive safely. And remember, the supreme court is nothing but yet another 9 guys and gals ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYROLL. It is beyond farce to think this system in any way represents a fair trial. NOBODY would agree to this.

Do you see the utter absurdity of this? This is the great freedom that we are told to go fight and die to defend and spread. The system is completely and totally corrupted all the way down the line. It is not an accident. It is designed this way.  Oh, and if you do manage to “win” does the government have to pay your legal bill? Ah, so sorry, we looked into that, and it’s going to be a no from us.  But we really liked your case.

You're looking for Steve.  I think he's still in the back looking for that thing in the constitution.

You’re looking for Steve? I think he’s still in the back looking for that thing in the constitution.

None of this charade of “justice” even includes the fact that there is nothing actually in the constitution that even authorizes the federal government to institute civil suits against its own citizens. Here go look for yourself. It isn’t there. That’s a pretty major “oversight” huh. Surely a power that great, to sue the very citizens you supposedly represent, would have to be clearly spelled out in the document.  I mean, they said the government could open post offices and then made it clear they could also operate postal roadsThat’s right a separate specific express authority to do both.  But i’m sure that we can just “assume” the people wanted to give the endlessly funded federal government the right to pursue the people themselves and drive them into bankruptcy or extort them into “confessing their wrongs” by pleading out the case.  That makes a lot of sense.

Let me ask you something.  Do you ever hear the supposed “defenders of the constitution” on the right talking about this? No. And you never will. Get it?

The QUO never sleeps.

The QUO never sleeps.

Do you now see what a joke a “jury trial” is?  I mean it has no purpose, just go ahead and do whatever you want government and save me the trouble of the show.  Wait… let me correct that. It does has a very specific and important purpose.  It just isn’t what you have been told.  The purpose is to TRICK the people into believing they are free from the time they are born.

Honestly, what more do you need than this list to see that you have no chance. Even if you can afford the hundreds of thousands it would cost to defend this stuff, you have no real chance, because even IF you manage to run this laughably Stalinesqe-Show- trial-gauntlet and “win”. The government can simply re-file on a “new claim” and you have to start all over again. How many times do you think you can win?

finish

Congratulations you won.  Now fill the hole and dig another.

People, the government is not your friend. Under NO circumstances can a system where a government court hears the cases where the government is involved against its own citizens be considered a “fair trial”. That is exactly the kind of absurdity that we are taught to “laugh at” because it exists in “unfree” countries. And not only do they hear the case, they are in total control of every aspect of your “trial” here in the greatest free-est. But nonetheless the people run around talking about freedom and justice as though it exists in this country.  As usual, the people are actively supporting the system that enslaves them and they don’t even see it.

I just hope you laugh the next time the media Wurlitzer shuffles out one of these “ex federal prosecutors” as though they have “served” the public and should be honored and praised.  And I hope you take a hard look when these “former federal judges” and “former federal prosecutors” start talking about justice and fairness and what should happen in a case.

The system is a railroad con job, top to bottom. It isn’t even a close call.

Drink in that freedom baby. USA USA USA!

Want to know more?  Hear Legalman sound off below.

Listening-ear-horn

 

Legalman lives another day,

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.