Monday, July 16, 2012

Anarchist Legal Technique

A non-statist had some questions about how he might, as a non-statist, go about defending himself in a statist court; I suggested some hypothetical means by which he could approach his legal self-defense [note: I am not a state-approved legal-expert {ie lawyer} and therefore must add the caveat to protect myself, that this is not to be construed as legal advice, it is only a hypothetical approach to how one might have substantive examination of the evidence at hand]: will be difficult to put on a competent defense if the judge has assigned a public defender to your case, as the public-defender will be highly-incentivized to protect his relationship with the court, more than the public-defender will be incentivized to raise substantive issues regarding the nature of the evidence and the legal-opinions; a technique that I would use requires you or a non-lawyer to be involved in the cross-examination of the officers involved; the first step is in pre-trial; the question, 

"Is this an evidentiary hearing?"

 is asked, nearly all judges will reply in the affirmative, this puts the judge on record that what is being "tried" in this "trial" is the evidence and not legal-opinions. The next question to be asked is, 

"Am I entitled to fair and impartial hearing?"

, again most judges will respond in the affirmative, this places the judge on record that if you receive an unfair, arbitrary or partial hearing that the hearing would be recognized as invalid. The next question is, 

"Am I entitled to question all the relevant evidence and elements of this case, and receive responsive answers to those questions?"

 again, the judge will nearly always answer in the affirmative, this establishes, by the judge's own admission, that you are entitled to question ALL relevant elements of the case and evidence, and to receive responsive answers. Some times the judge will say that "I am not hear to give you legal advice" or "the court is just interested in how you would plead at this point, if you have questions, then you can ask those at trial", in which case, a productive response is to reply, "I'm sorry Sir (or your "Honor") I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand all of the legal-ese being spoken here, without understanding the nature of the charges, the elements of the case, and the evidence that the prosecution is presenting to this court, I am incompetent to have an understanding of these legal proceedings; I have before me, an unsigned plea of 'guilty' as I have every intention of entering a plea, but I lack a competent understanding of the charges, so if you would only answer a few questions, I believe that I would be properly prepared to officially enter a plea" . If the judge enters a plea "in your behalf" then a productive line of questioning might be, "Sir, on whose behalf are you entering a plea for me?" and when he responds "you", reply with, "Sir, are you my lawyer? Are you claiming to represent me though I have given you no consent to do so?"

Issues of jurisdiction may be brought up at any time (because if the court does not have jurisdiction, then the entire case is a nullity), though I have had heard of cases in which the judges may lie and say that it could only be brought up at certain other times but failing this deception, an avenue to pursue may be to question the jurisdiction of the case, 

"Sir, I see here that the prosecutor claims to represent the 'State of Kentucky', and that the 'State of Kentucky' charges me with {enter the charges here}; I also see it here alleged that I was within the jurisdiction of this same 'State of Kentucky', does the 'honorable' prosecutor here claim to represent the ground? {The alleged representation of the prosecutor of the 'State of Kentucky', is an element of this case, therefore ask}, 'What is the evidence that the prosecutor is using, to base his legal-opinion upon, that he represents the ground? When and how was this "representation" acquired?"

This sets up an issue for the prosecutor, for he relies on no evidence for these assertions, only the legal-opinions of himself and others; he has no evidence that he represents the ground, at best he may be able to produce evidence that he represents a political-corporation; either he represents a political-corporation, in which case there is no evidence that you were within that political-corporation at the time of the incident, or he represents the ground, in which case, he must establish by evidence, how he came to represent the 'ground' or how it is that the 'ground' charges you will some violation... The judge, as examiner of the evidence, is legally-obligated only to accept evidence that is presented before him, so even if the judge dismisses your question, and allows the prosecutor to sustain his legal opinion, this makes for a very good judicial-error on the part of the judge which will be in your favor upon appeal.

When the prosecutor makes the claim that he represents a political-corporation, you can employ the results of your "Am I entitled to a fair and impartial hearing?" question; 
"{to the prosecutor} Sir, you claim to represent this political-body/corporation; {to the judge} your 'honor' who do you represent?" 
 Of course they both ultimately represent the same political-corporation, the judge might reply that he represents both parties, then you could ask, 
"Sir, are you saying you are here on your own behalf? How is it that you acquired this 'representation' of both parties? I do not remember requesting this representation, do you 'represent' me against my own interests?" 
 In either case, you will attempt to ask the judge to recuse himself, and assign an impartial arbiter not connected to the same interest as the prosecutor, based on the fact that he does indeed represent the same fiduciary-interest/political-corporation as the prosecutor. In the case of jurisdiction, if the prosecutor is at a loss to produce evidence that either he represents the ground, or that you were 'within' the political-corporation at the time of the incident, you will request to the judge, 
"Your 'honor', I move to dismiss this case based on a lack of evidence provided by the prosecutor as to the jurisdiction of this case."
Or, "Your 'honor', I move to dismiss this case based on the grounds that you are here as representative for the same fiduciary-interest as the prosecution, and I move to have the court transfer this dispute to a court with an impartial arbiter."


  1. Check this out:

  2. This too:

  3. @Todd Cerami : I watched both of these videos and while I'm pretty skeptical by nature, some of the stuff presented by Victor seemed like they would be solid techniques. I especially like putting yourself down as a secured creditor for yourself for an amount of one million dollars; since in bankruptcy, the first secured creditors are paid first... seems like that might just be able to fly.

    I like Marc's approach better as it comes from a non-statist perspective/philosophy but I think Victor's (Vic) has a lot of similarities (not specifically non-statist/anarchist but a lot of the conclusions are the same). I think that questioning the factual evidence could be the most productive avenue to pursue but if you have additional information on Victor's approach, I'd be willing to take a look at it. :-)