Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Contempt of Court

Expand Messages
  • susanne waid
    Email 41 posted on concept of contempt in court issues. While this does not deal directly with the concept, it is very useful as to how to respond if you are
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2006
      Email 41 posted on concept of contempt in court issues. While this does not
      deal directly with the concept, it is very useful as to how to respond if
      you are charged with contempt while in court. Susanne


      Moderator/Bear:I do not agree with this post at all. If you go about it right you will NEVER be in the position that Pam Gaston describes (head spinning) in this post. This group would do better to get my contempt package, forms and treatise at http://freedivorceforms.net/htdocs/files/contempt.htm and learn how the courts look at contempt; how to defend contempt and how to prosecute contempt in a manner to enforce your rights. Almost this whole post shows that the writer, Pam Gaston, knew very little about contempt. I say knew because Pam is no longer with us.




      How to Respond to Contempt of Court, Judicial Attack



      We cringe for people going into court, dealing with the "sons of vipers,
      offspring of serpents" in these outlaw courts today. So many people write
      to us and call us, as they are being rendered in the money machine every
      day, liquidated to the Funding Streams for the elite.



      The rendering is in the PROCESS and most people do not have experience to
      understand or recognize corrupt process when they are in the middle of it.
      Attorneys do - they created it and don't let everyone in on the "secret"
      (wink wink) while you and your children are destroyed.



      To help all the people in courts right now who are discovering Sui Juris
      process and going in without attorneys, they need to know what to say when
      the judge turns into a raging dragon because they dared to ask a question or
      try to make the record, and to help keep from being arrested. These tools
      in particular are used and shared with many thanks to our friends Milt and
      Darlene Mitcheck, who were the researchers behind the "Vultures"
      compilations that exposed the false judicial oaths in Oregon in September
      2001, Research that can be also found at our website
      <http://www.avoiceforchildren.com> www.avoiceforchildren.com.



      If you know the right words, they back down right now - they may still have
      you arrested, but you have said the right words on the record to discredit
      him in his contemptuous acts against you, and you will use this record in
      any appeal or future hearings as you go. The main thing is you DISCREDIT
      HIM and IMPEACH HIM IN HIS OWN COURTROOM if you say the right things.



      This can be used in any court in any setting, at any level, all the same
      basic process. I think in any country, with slight variations. Sui Juris
      process is simple and common law, as "any reasonable people would
      understand" and bridges all forms of courts or dealing with public
      authorities.



      One of the main TOOLS they use to arrest you in a courtroom is "CONTEMPT OF
      COURT". Contempt is an instant six months in jail or a year sentence,
      potentially that is what you face. They use this for any or no reason,
      mainly for intimidation, and this is where they will (have already) use a
      stun belt or gun on a defendant who "irritates" the court asking for our
      rights.



      When they do this to you, and it happens so fast it makes your head spin, if
      you have this written down, and can keep your wits about you enough to
      remember to say it, (you should practice it! It is THAT important!) Here is
      what you say:



      "IS THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT JUDGE?" (You wait for a
      response on the record - do not talk until he answers and if they pause this
      LONG pause is on the record that he cannot answer you - the silence of a
      witness answering a question is an admission of truth in a court record and
      the longer the pause the better. All you want on the record is to make them
      COMMIT and then you go on, and now you have them caught in the permanent
      record)



      If he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT" - you say "WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, WHAT IS THE
      CRIME AND WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?" and wait again as long as it takes for
      him to say something.



      If he says "CIVIL CONTEMPT" you say "WHERE IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND
      YOU? I DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT", JUDGE.



      NOW you have him acting CRIMINALLY OUTSIDE OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND
      OUT OF IMMUNITY in his own courtroom on the record and here is why. In
      civil court, EVERYTHING is a CONTRACT and nothing can be done that is not a
      form of a contract. And ONLY HUMANS CAN LAWFULY CONTRACT. Every citation,
      money exchange, order, anything at all is an exchange - a contract - between
      two humans. The constitution is a contract with the Children of a Creator
      with Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally Sovereign People in the state,
      bonded by the JUDICIAL OATH - their contract.



      Anyway, when you say to him "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" he
      KNOWS he does not have a contract with you and if you have committed no
      crime he has no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing -
      he is OUT of his lawful jurisdiction and OUT of his IMMUNITY.



      Now, if he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT", like one judge did to me, judge Robert
      Walberg, with no lawful oath by the way, he made a FOOL of himself ! He
      said "IF YOU ASK THAT AGAIN I AM HOLDING YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT" I said
      "IS THAT CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CONTEMPT WALBERG?" and he raged and said
      "CRIMINAL'.



      I said "WHAT CRIME HAVE I COMMITTED AND WHO MAKES THE CLAIM? WHO IS THE
      INJURED PARTY?' He went nuts and started yelling "THE STATE OF OREGON",
      "THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM", "THE COURT"..... I said "YOU KNOW THAT ONLY A HUMAN
      CAN MAKE A CLAIM AND THERE IS NO CRIME AND NO INJURED PARTY - YOU KNOW THAT
      THE STATE OF OREGON CANNOT MAKE A CLAIM" he backed down and sat there red
      faced (he had already arrested me about three times for speaking before this
      contempt attempt) and it shut him down.



      This was on the third day of the battle in his courtroom/sham jury trial
      last January - so after this confrontation backed him down he sat WAY BACK
      in his chair for three hours and let me make the record, while the jury
      waited in the back. MAKING THE RECORD WAS MY ONLY GOAL ANYWAY TO UPDATE THE
      RECORD IN OUR CASE. Unfortunately for us, the juries do not understand
      anything at all, and these confrontations scare them, so all the knowledge
      of court process and higher law goes right over their heads and they do
      EXACTLY what the judge LETS them do by the way he manipulates the
      instructions. This judge held his finger to his upper lip and looked like a
      cadaver for three hours, listening to the record of the crimes of our
      evidence against the state and his own treason as I outlined what has
      happened.



      That is how you make the Record. You have to use another trick called
      "OFFER OF PROOF". When they fight you and attack you, and rage, and say you
      cant say anything in front of the jury, and the DA interrupt literally EVERY
      sentence to stop you from speaking for days (I have gone through this !)...
      You tell the judge "I AM GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR MY APPEAL". He
      sometimes will go in the back room altogether and leave the record on, or he
      will sit way back and listen while you make the record of your facts without
      the jury present. Another trick process word is "OFFER INTO EVIDENCE" they
      will let you go around for days and be denied because you don't say it that
      way..... they are insane, but if you do use their words they know that they
      have to acknowledge that this is their process and they use it so you have
      to be able to use it too.



      Another important phrase to use is RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. After going around
      with them to a certain point and being blocked at all points, you say 'ARE
      YOU TRYING TO RUSH ME TO JUDGEMENT?" WOW - it works - boy they sit back so
      fast and shut up you would not believe - you would think they were shot -
      supposedly four times in a hearing saying that gets a reversal, but with us
      they don't give us anything, so I am not sure. But it is an important TOOL,
      you say this and it means they are preventing you from putting on your
      evidence as a lawful court and judicial due process requires, and for you to
      say this as they are doing it is like shooting them in their chair.



      I hope people will write these things down in front of them when they are
      terrified in court - everyone is terrified in the court, even the attorneys,
      especially when you are bringing truth of this magnitude in there - we say
      where the truth meets the lie there is fallout - like a neutron bomb, you
      definitely stir up the hornest nest when you speak the truth in their
      courtrooms.



      The rest of the Process for the People to Access the Courts is in the book
      we wrote. We learned these tools more recently and they are an "addition"
      to the information in the Sui Juris Book. This is what REALLY happens when
      you are in there, not what we think will happen or hope will happen. And
      learning these tools, you are prepared to meet this present evil face to
      face.



      If you are not in court, save this information and pass it on to friends who
      need it...



      pamela gaston



      _____

      _____
    • Joy Metcalf
      I ve heard and been told by several people that if a judge threatens you with contempt of court, you ask Is that civil contempt or criminal contempt? If
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 11, 2006
        I've heard and been told by several people that if a judge threatens you with contempt of court, you ask "Is that civil contempt or criminal contempt?"  If civil, "Is that in the nature of a tort or a contract?"  If a tort, "Who was damaged and what was the claim?"  If a contract, "What is the contract that I violated?  I do not make contract with you, judge."

        If criminal, "Who was injured and what was the injury"  or "who is the victim and what crime was committed?"  And then follow it with "Then I am entitled to due process of law, including a grand jury, isn't that so, judge?"

        Has anyone ever used this?  Or have you SEEN it used?  What was the outcome?  If it's not a good idea, why not, and what is a better way to handle it?

        Recently I was in court and the judge threatened me several times.  Each time I said, "I'm trying to claim and exercise a constitutional right, and according to Miller vs U.S., the claiming and exercising of a right cannot be converted to a crime."  Now, I don't know if the judge would have actually put me in jail, but I was intimidated enough that after about the 6-8th time of his threatening me, and telling me this was not the venue to challenge jurisdiction, I shut up and left the courtroom.  What I was trying to do, btw, was make a record, and read a now-cured affidavit that showed the prosecution had by their silence agreed there was no case.


        Joy Metcalf   rosawoodsii@...

        The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws -- Roman senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus



















      • Frog Farmer
        ... This is not a strategy - it is only common sense. Probably thousands have used it to get the simple answers to simple questions. The outcome is that
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 11, 2006
          On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Joy Metcalf wrote:

          > I've heard and been told by several people that if a judge threatens
          > you with contempt of court, you ask "Is that civil contempt or
          > criminal contempt?"  If civil, "Is that in the nature of a tort or a
          > contract?"  If a tort, "Who was damaged and what was the claim?"  If a
          > contract, "What is the contract that I violated?  I do not make
          > contract with you, judge."
          >
          > If criminal, "Who was injured and what was the injury"  or "who is
          > the victim and what crime was committed?"  And then follow it with
          > "Then I am entitled to due process of law, including a grand jury,
          > isn't that so, judge?"
          >
          > Has anyone ever used this?  Or have you SEEN it used?  What was the
          > outcome?  If it's not a good idea, why not, and what is a better way
          > to handle it?

          This is not a "strategy" - it is only common sense. Probably thousands
          have "used it" to get the simple answers to simple questions. The
          outcome is that any doubts are resolved regarding the type of contempt
          that is being charged. It's always a good idea to resolve doubts. It
          does nothing towards winning or losing the case.

          > Recently I was in court and the judge threatened me several times. 
          > Each time I said, "I'm trying to claim and exercise a constitutional
          > right, and according to Miller vs U.S., the claiming and exercising of
          > a right cannot be converted to a crime." 

          You might have said what the right was.

          > Now, I don't know if the judge would have actually put me in jail,
          > but I was intimidated enough that after about the 6-8th time of his
          > threatening me, and telling me this was not the venue to challenge
          > jurisdiction, I shut up and left the courtroom. 

          I think the clue is that jurisdiction is best challenged immediately
          (in the IMOC??), without at the same time appearing to grant it.
        • macwildstar
          Every judge whose court room I have visted in my area, either as a witness, or as a particpant, has done the same thing. From Local to state, to federal
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 11, 2006
            Every judge whose court room I have visted in my area, either as a witness, or as a particpant, has done the same thing.

            From Local to state, to federal levels, the judges REFUSE to adress the jurisdictional issue.
            Mac - in West Michigan.

            ----- Orginal Message -----
            From: Joy Metcalf
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:33 PM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Contempt of Court


            I've heard and been told by several people that if a judge threatens you with contempt of court, you ask "Is that civil contempt or criminal contempt?" If civil, "Is that in the nature of a tort or a contract?" If a tort, "Who was damaged and what was the claim?" If a contract, "What is the contract that I violated? I do not make contract with you, judge."
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.