This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
When Not To Go To Court (Spoiler: When The Judge Is Hungry)
With social unrest on the rise, knowing more about the judicial system is crucial for everyone...
In the following chart, the dotted line represent food breaks.
As is very clear, the best time to go to court is right after a food break (the circled points below indicate the first decision in each session)
And the worst time to face the judge for your latest 'strike' - when he is hungry...
»
- 19855 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
ACLU: 'Black Spring Has Begun'...
All I can say is I'm glad it's May
Fire season gonna be long, and hot. Esp in Cali.
so not only is it nearly impossible for the average "law abiding" citizen to go through the day without unknowingly committing one or more crimes, now your fate rests on whether or not the fat, old, self important statist douche bag sitting on the bench has had his lunch yet?
At that age 3 martinis is a biological imperative.
and don't forget federal judges are appointed for life
And who said there was no job security?
Not really. But, now you know who all the FEMA camps are probably really for. They took every bit of bait put in front of them.
Dissidents. All colors. If you aren't cop...
Free Corzine!
Makes Sense....I get ornery when I'm hungry.
Hangry
get yourself cooler, lay yourself low
coincidental murder, with nothing to show
with the judge, constipation will go to his head
and his wife's aggravation, you're soon enough dead
it's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend
I was always given the option of what time of day I wanted to appear before the judge to be tried and sentanced.
I'm posting this from my prison cell right now.
too bad your name isn't corzine. if it were you would get to decide what time of day the judge got sentenced.
I'm guessing you were sentenced just before lunch. That's why you're serving ten-to-twelve.
The legal system or "temple bar" is a fraud and the cause of tyranny.
http://nesara.insights2.org/CrownTemplars.html
Well the fucksticks at the BANK have dismissed their foreclosure case against me after 3 years. Why? Could it be I called them out on their forged "evidence"? Could it be I said I would go after the Plaintiff's attorney's bonds for submitting forged paperwork? The Plaintiff assigned away the mortgage to another well known criminal enterprise, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and "transferred the loan" (undefined terms!) to them as well. Naturally it has been admitted that Freddie Mac is the "owner" (always in quotes for some odd reason) of the Note. So Nationstar? Fuck you and bring on your paper pushing pussy attorneys. Their small problem is I can read, write, reseach and type! Their BIGGEST PROBLEM IS I KNOW EVERYTHING THEY SUBMIT IS A LIE. Makes it pretty easy, really.
The judges in most places have "financials" in their state retirement accounts. Usually up to 20% of the portfolio. So the "fair" judges have a HUGE interest in protecting the banksters. Surprise!
Good on you; fuck those faggot bankers
Might want to do some reading on USC 18/1014. Look at US. v. Bush coming out of Florida. Bank officers can be popped under this statue as well.
I only have one story to tell here because I was once elected the jury foreman.
The case involved a foreign exchange student, the couple who was hosting her (one of whom was a doctor) that lent her their car, and a sleazy real broker who claimed a number of b.s. injuries after a fender bender between the foreign exchange student and the car the real estate broker was in. He was the passenger in the passenger seat. He and his friend (who never once made a court appearance on his behalf) were rear ended by the foreign exchange student. Sleazy real estate broker claimed he suffered a concussion and therefore lost out on millions in real estate deals... (Which as everyone knows, this falls under the speculative income category, and hence you can ask the judge for the money, but generally he will laugh in your face because of the way California law is written.)
Long story short...
Defense attorneys worry if you you don't bring a verdict back before lunch. They believe that they have lost the case for their client and the jury is calculating an immense amount of damages.
The defense attorney was thus extermely shocked that we found no basis for any of the claims of the sleazy real estate broker (who was stupid enough to submit his tax returns in the case paperwork, and it was made available to the jury!)...
The defense attorney actually interviewed me after we were rolling out of the court. That is when he began to tell me about "after lunch" jury verdicts.
The kicker here is the jury was extremely hungry that day and we all decided to get a final meal on the taxpayer dime. We had made up our minds within an hour of that the sleazy real estate broker had no case, and therefore did not deserve a penny. We spent the next two hours figuring out if it was actually legal to charge the broker and his lawyer for wasting the court's time as well as the twelve of us. We actually formulated this in a note to the judge. The answer came back quickly, which was of course "no" because the real estate broker was not on trial here. If it weren't for our extreme hunger pangs, we would have been done before lunch. But apparently the odds are indeed favorable for the defense if the jury comes back before lunch to deliver their verdict.
Standard Disclaimer: Remember the part about the tax returns? I believe a number of us contacted the IRS anonymously after the trial was over. <cue evil laughter>
Standard Disclaimer 2: "Whatever its measure in a given case, it is fundamental that 'damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal basis for recovery.' However, recovery is allowed if claimed benefits are reasonably certain to have been realized but for the wrongful act of the opposing party." (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 989 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 88], internal citations omitted.)
Additional Clue: Applies to stock options in the case of CA divorces... (personal experience... the ex got nothing)
And now I've learned a few more things today; thank you and +1!
A jury of his fellow citizens is a man's last bastion of defense. Therefore, thank you for defending freedom, because serving on a jury IS defending freedom. "Fully informed jury".
I'll make sure I bring a box of doughnuts for the judge at my next sentencing hearing . . . .
Donuts only work for the police (lightly sprinkled with steroids, of course, and served with Coffee).
As for Judges, their tastes are far more refined (Filet of Young Fah-Ginah, lightly drizzled in Cream Of Som Yongai).
I'll call my lawyer. He'll call your lawyer. They'll do lunch. They'll bill us. The real battle is to find out which one has the sexiest secratary for the Judge to consult with, 'in chambers', during the lunch break. If your lawyer has a fugly one, I hope (for your sake) that he has an extra set of knee pads in the trunk of his BMW. Actually, depending on the Judge, this might actually be an advantage for 'your side'.
A little 'Rock Wars' song, for your enjoyment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGFp7saTQEU
Or brownies.... :-)
It helps to have a super-hot attorney that sweet talks the judges and prosecutors and knows them and works with them regularly. I have first hand experience lol.
The law can't help the average man, not anymore (not even sure if there was ever a time when it did, someone a lot older than me would have to chime in on that one)
IMO the average man should avoid court as much as possible, unless you have a billion dollar legal fund to buy up judges , you won't get anything worth your time.
For the lay person, courts can only help solve domestic disputes (if even that ), anything "important" will quickly be swept under the rug. . . or worse.
The Founding Fathers put the jury system right into the Bill of Rights. "The law" might not "help" the "average man", but a jury of his peers is his last protection. The judge decides neither the facts nor the law. The jury decides both. Again, "fully informed jury".
I have always thought, the law is among the facts, is it not?
Good thought, but my opinion is, "not necessarily".
My view is that many laws are written by businesmen to arrange markets to enrich themselves. So, for example, a law can say that I can sell something, but you can't. If such a law were enacted, then it would be a fact that that law would be a law. BUT a jury can decide that it is NOT a "real law", but is only "color of law", a thing dressed up as a law, but in such conflict with the natural nature of law that it is not, in the jury's opinion, actually a law at all.
Just as a fish dressed in a gown is not a princess, so a law that conflicts with the natural nature of law is not really a law.
Something to that effect. That's the idea.
Bastiat, and "fully informed jury".