Their seems to be many for profit gurus of the law in these days. Some claim to have been in jail and some do not make such claims. I’m not clear how going to jail makes one an expert at law, but there are many things that can get pass a person who has no understanding of the matter at hand. Understanding the matter at hand when it is new to you requires that you keep an open mind and pay close attention. The worst thing one can do as a student or a teacher is to have a close mine or assume that you already know or should know.
Last year I was introduced to a show on internet radio. This show concerns itself with many issues the main one being going to court. It is a public service show (in that the show provides a small public service with additional options for more in depth help). And for that I commend the show because it takes a lot of dedication to be able to do a show every day of the week. That being said, many times teachers on this subject become vainglorious and therefor complacent. When that happens it becomes hard to see new ways. (that really were always there!) For that reason I took more time to give a concerted effort to present this story in the best light for the host. This is a story of Cognitive Dissonance!
(Social psychologists refer to cognitive dissonance as the presence
of congruent relations among cognition [thought and understanding]). “When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance”.
In this case the host has been told and believes that one must play by the rules of the court at all times. He experiences cognitive dissonance when told that that is not always the case. To understand what I was telling the host it is suggested that you listen to this short story I call “Seat Belts 3 which should explain how the process works. then listen to the call in, and we can dig deeper after you have.
Please keep in mind that we all agreed that we have the right to contract as put forth by the people for the governing bodies in the Constitution : No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
(Title of Nobility : Esq * which is a lawyer)
So the court can’t impair my right to contract! Which means they (the court) can’t tell me or you that one must take a lawyer even if he will not contract with you. That would be impairing your rights. (YOU GOTTA KNOW WHO YOU ARE!)
Lawyers are officers of the court and they are responsible to the judiciary for the propriety of their professional activities. In other words, their first obligation is to the court, which provides them a means of living. So if you don’t have a contract with the lawyer how do you know who he is working for?
Notice that the host first reaction is to put the speaker into a category! (ie “He must be a Moore”) which is an error of assumption, [an attempt to reduce dissonance] to bring what I am saying in line with his thinking. He refuses to hear that I am more than willing to accept a lawyer. But with prejudice , he must sign a contract to work for me! This can not be viewed as an unreasonable demand as it is part of their trade to write contracts.“So demand a contract”!
This seem to be the hardest fact for the host to accept, an unexpected curve in the perception of the law! Then it really get strange when he starts telling me that “what I want to do is, form a contract with the lawyer and accept his appointment
(which is what I’ve been talking about all along!) After the host make some interesting statements about public and private in conjunction with courts and debt collection!” (I’m not sure he is seeing the big picture. The federal reserve is not a part of the government and they are the problem not the solution.)
It’s not clear if he knows that the courts are duplicity in action, and if you do not make the court, your court. It becomes or remains a court of equity. As far as being seen by the court, how can anyone see a straw-man (a fiction)? In other words, the only time the court can’t see you is when you do not understand! As per the maxim (He who dose not understand is not present!) So if the court is acting like your not there, it is most likely because you do not understand what is going on. When you do understand they tend to dismiss the case or leave the courtroom.
Anyway he agrees with me about the ratification of commencement, but I am unsure of that because he goes on to talk about commercial courts .He does not understand that a ratification of commencement is about the real party of interest, and that in commercial court when dealing with the state as the plaintiff there is no real party of interest!
I was promised that he would look into what I was saying. As I, in fact asked him to, because of the number of people who look to him for help. And if he had, he would have been able to help the caller that called in just a few weeks later.
This is the situation that the caller stated he was in. He somehow got into a confrontation with a policy enforcement officer(aka) police, and he was also on probation. He told the host that his court case was that Friday and that he would probably be going to jail.
And the host agreed, He would be going to jail because there was no way he was going to get the paperwork in!
Which is the reason for the emergency litigation process.
I was unable to connect via phone that day.
There are to many errors in understanding to put into in this post and it might seem to some if I continue, that I have a bone to pick.But as stated I commend the afford.
But if requested, I will post a comment on them. (errors) If more understanding is needed…
When the ears of the student are ready to hear, Then commence the lips to fill them with wisdom…