Comment: The Judge contrary to common believe...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: so, okay (see in situ)

The Judge contrary to common believe...

Does not make the decision. Sure he can say "sustained" or "over-ruled" in criminal or common law, but at the end of the day it's the juries that decide, but when it comes to Commercial Code (Statute) the first decision starts with you. Do you consent or do you not consent. If you consent (and there are many ways to do this) they have have all they need to conduct their kangaroo court. If you do not consent (and their is only one way to do this) they will be hard pressed to do anything to you without first violating their oath. If a claim is made against you it is your job and choice to refute it. Judges are limited to what they can do when you don't play the game. Claim your sovereign from the start and whatever claim anyone makes against you is going to be vary hard to prove.

Oh and this BS about "attorneys, who want to win their clients' cases" are limited by virtue of them being licensed to "practice". You get licensed you "abandoned" your power to unequivocally represent your client. Your client is screwed from the get go (when it comes to you litigating what the jurisdiction can be in your clients case. Your license is your consent to the courts decision to jurisdiction. Your client signing a contract that does not stipulate "properly" the terms of the relationship with a party that finds you in dishonor is, to the courts, consent from you that the "law" (Statute) applies to you.

If you are a day to day lawyer, you are not very good at looking through all the smoke and mirrors.

Just my opinion.

And that's all judges have. Opinions. I have a sacred right to not consent. And Statute does not apply to me.

The difference between man's law and god's law is one can be manipulated by many lies through many tongues 'til the end of time. The other can not.

~Good Night, And Good Luck~