when you bring knowledge into the courtroom. He who brings the liability must bring the remedy. They always try to get the "person" to "bond" the case...whatever the "case" may be.
And "drug statutes" DO NOT APPLY to non US citizens....
Going in as the Creditor or even Pro Se costs the courts money....time is money, and plus everytime someone displays incredible intellignece in the courtroom, it dramatically raises the consciousness of the court which must be avoided at all costs if their "credit" scheme is to continue.
Bottom line....COURTS DO NOT WANT TO STEP INTO LIABILITIES THEY ARE NOT READY TO HANDLE!
There are plenty of easy fish to fry, maybe now they will just have to get double and triple fried to make up for the losses incurred by someone who not only refused to "bond" the attorney's case, but also lawfully BILLED the attorney for all the costs invovled.
Money is their deity...take that away, and watch how fast they flee.
I really can't comprehend how we are going to save this world (cause face it that is what we are doing) other than an intimate overstanding of the law and our rights and how each of those relates to the world of commerce we currently live in!
In US vs JOHNSON it was ruled that
"The priviledge against self-incrimmination is neither accorded to the passive resistent, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can ONLY be sustained by COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person."
McAlister vs Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct.385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Let's hear it for Julius the belligerent claimant...lol
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: