What's up with the judge constantly saying "I don't know what that means"? Feels like as much manoeuvring as she's doing. Does he really not know what these things mean... or is he kind of overriding and railroading what she's attempting? Why won't he answer the "are you a neutral judge" question? He'd answer any other little clarifying questions, but certain ones he dodges. Do you think that's just normal human irritation, or is he being strategic with stuff like that? only watched the first half so far...

Because in the practice of law words have specific meanings and he’s skipping the step where he’s supposed to pretend she’s asking a reasonable question and rightly assuming “Neutral Judge” is a term of art in her head and not lowercase ‘neutral judge’ that would be used in a different context because, in this context, he is obviously a neutral because that’s what judges are so she must be meaning capital N J Neutral Judge which is not a thing beyond the normal meeting of neutral which is redundant when put before the word judge. Setting aside all the comments that will inevitably follow to impugn the judiciary, there is no such thing as a non-neutral judge. In other words, he’s skipping the fake part of the conversation and getting right to the point.

If she asks a bunch of questions, and has filed a bunch of stuff, and they always say "we don't know what these things mean", what's her recourse? does she have to take those "confusing" things to a higher court, and are they compelled to hear it, or can they just tell her to get lost? "you can only plead X or Y (not Z)". how is this different than "you can only plead X" (like, say, "guilty")? what's the difference between not accepting her "equity" plea and not accepting someone else's "not guilty" plea?

but he could have said, "Yes, I am a [lowercase] neutral judge, because we all are", without any error or risk, right? But to do so would be to sort of entertain her impugning?

Because there is no such thing as pleading “equity” she might as well be pleading Banana which would warrant the same result. As for all the stuff she filed she is fully within her right to appeal any order striking or denying those things. That’s sort of the point here, if any of this stuff was right or good it would be appealed and would succeed. The reality is these people think there is a secret book of rules being concealed from the public and if you but invoke the secret rules they are bound to follow them. The reality is there is no “Secret Menu” you can order from if you just know the magic words.

Yes it would be a massive waste of time because it’s not a good faith question. If you really believe there is legitimate bias then the move is to file a motion for the judge to recuse themselves with an explanation that justifies the request, but she would have asked that question to literally any judge.

But to answer your question directly, yes he could have answered that way if he thought she was actually asking that question but she isn’t and he already knows that. Lots of people go into Court just wanting to ramble and its impossible for judges to let that happen because theres shit to get done. I can tell you from experience even non-sovereign citizen clients often think if they can just go into court and explain to the judge why the other side is stupid the case would just be instantly dismissed and why do they have to pay me so much money to whatever, but that’s not how it works. There’s a process and there has to be a process and there’s a time for statements to be made and evidence ,etc. and it’s not whenever the litigant wants it to be.

it sounds a little like she did file certain things and they just threw them all out with "what you filed is all nonsense". Of course, I don't know what she filed - and maybe it was all nonsense. But I guess what I'm asking is, if you assume the opposite of your prior statement, that there **is** some secret rulebook and they count on nobody being aware of it, wouldn't throwing out all the filings and in-court comments as "we don't know what those things are" be exactly the move to make to insure that the secret playbook stays secret and doesn't rise to the level of being noticeable by onlookers? I realize there are some logical problems with that line of reasoning, but maybe you'll answer it anyway?

Well let me put it this way, if there is a secret rule book but none of the judges have to follow it then is there really a secret rule book? Can the “real” law even be the law if no one in authority is bound to follow it? But, presumably if the Court concluded that the filings were nonsense then that means they were reviewed. Filings often get reviewed and summarily denied if they make no sense. Motions get denied all the time for failure to do something as simple as certify that you conferred with the opposing party before filing it even if the motion’s argument is sound. If rejection/striking/dismissal of her filings was inappropriate then she can appeal those rulings. But if the appellate court is in on the conspiracy and the Supreme Court is in on the conspiracy, then is there really a secret book of laws in any meaningful sense or at all?

> But if the appellate court is in on the conspiracy and the Supreme Court is in on the conspiracy, then is there really a secret book of laws in any meaningful sense or at all? That's sort of their whole point, right? I don't actually know, I haven't looked into this that deeply - but I've got the sense that that's the hypothesis. But of course, as you point out, if "it really goes that deep", then it's futile to try this tack. So, either way, it's futile - whether or not it's true 😆

i had a case involving me not registering or insuring a 50cc scooter (sach madass 50) and my legal argument was based on the fact that the Statute of Monopolies 1624 specifically forbids the crown (which means the prosecution) from establishing monopolies, and that their licensure scheme with vehicles - and especially compulsory insurance, was a monopoly. the judge went into chambers for 45 minutes then comes back out and recites about 6 or 7 case histories that had nothing to do with my claims, then gavel goes down and some nonsense about fines that i was not going to pay, and didn't pay. in fact within 6 months i left the country permanently. the real fax are that the whole thing is literally racketeering and that old law should have made it impossible. if i had any money and wasn't doing my own defense and had any access to the documents i probably could have stirred up some trouble because as i pointed out in my argument, the excise duty on the fuel supposedly covers the road use and very reasonably can be said to have a direct relation to the damage one's vehicle does to the road, as well as other reasonable provision for police providing support in cases of car accidents. but the real focus of all of their stuff is not just to pay for it, and when people say equity, if the tax is claimed to be payment for the roads, then what is the registration and how is compulsory payment of insurance to a set of licenced companies - a monopoly, not a literal racket. i lost my bike. that bike was the only way i could get enough advertising around for my tech support business. essentially, the legislation destroys the economic viability of anyone trying to make a living as a freelancer in a field that has no licensure or any of that shit. i was good at my job, i just couldn't get enough customers to actually make a living. anyway. during that time i learned a lot about equity. equity is actually relevant because supposedly there is trust stuff involved in the representation and citizenship stuff. but as i'm sure you are already reaching for your keyboard to tell me, that's not how the system works now. they established their liberal democratic state with representations and congresses and senates and you are already imputed to have a debt of allegiance to the state from the moment you are born (not just the registration). now one other thing i will say is that i've been living a lot of the time in many countries some in the EU some outside of it, almost never getting tax registration. now *that* does have some interesting impacts. it makes some things awkward, but it also means that they certainly are not likely to investigate me for tax fraud at any point even though i clearly can't pay it anyway. which is funny.

Let me assure you, I _have_ looked into it and they are just wrong. I’m trying to come up with better analogies but it’s sort of like if you tried to take all the conventions and syntax of one programming language and then insist on using them in a different programming language. You’ll be saying a lot of shit that would make sense elsewhere but not _here_. One example is trying to claim they are not “in commerce” so they dont need a drivers license by referring to a statute that exempts licensure for certain commercial drivers but thats an exemption for _that_ type of license for _that_ type of driver, those same people still have to get regular driver’s licenses. You see young lawyers do this too where they will take some phrase from a case and try to shoehorn it into a context where it doesn’t make sense because the words on their face sound right and you would love to hear the judge use them in your case but the context is completely wrong for it.

I agree that government is a racket and a monopoly-generator and basically a criminal organization. I just want people to learn how to navigate it for their benefit instead of insisting on justice which is often not attainable.

You are incentivised to play a game that disadvantages you, because not playing disadvantages you more.

yeah, i respect that. it's something i sic claude on from time to time, look up legislations and tell me what it's all about because well, in this case, the laws are in a language i don't know well anyway. of course claude's training corpus included a heap of sovcit stuff and it explained to me one time how things really work. like i supposedly did an A4V on a tax bill once. it explained that even though they stopped sending me the bills it was actually because they figured i would never be able to pay it anyway so they just put it in teh cold file in case i do get rich enough to chase

in my case i just did a table flip because i was 36 years old and in no danger of ever having enough income to own a house or have a family. so i went adventuring instead. 14 years later, 5 of those years spent homeless, and i'm still in adventure mode but finally fed up with dealing with the West as a whole so as soon as i stack enough i'm gonna go play at being a mongolian.

Sounds great, speaking of the Mongols, my friend did this a few years ago. He had the time of his life:

The Adventurists - Fighting to make the world less boring

Mongol Rally - The Adventurists

she's asking questions in a technical situation, but her questions aren't well formed. does the judge know what the word "neutral" means? of course. does this term have a legal definition in the current context? no. her behavior in the second appearance could easily have ended in contempt of court. if you're careful you can see the court trying to help her out: "This is not a money case involving two parties in a contract. This is a criminal case where there are traffic offenses that have been alleged against you" which the defendant attempts to reframe: "Your honor, I know you and I both know that while this purports to be a a criminal matter, it is actually a commercial in nature, right?" before accusing the court: "And your honor, do you have a financial interest in this matter?" the whole thing was pretty painful to watch, because the defendant is largely ignorant of how much fire they're playing with, and the court is being more accommodating than necessary

The comments were eye-opening.