From Part 1, this 2nd part reviews the likely answers from the questions in Part 1. Answers can vary depending on the situation at hand. The context of these questions is attending court without being in PERSON, hence you are in court as: A Man/Woman, A Creditor, An Accommodation Party (and there are plenty of others).
Contrary to common views, in a general sense, a magistrate/judge could not be more pleased seeing people in their courtroom that truly understand contracting and are able to “help” the prosecution in resolving a matter. PERSON DEBTORs frequent the court all day long bringing in controversy that requires constant adjudication. There is nothing more pleasing than to have someone that can actually “see” and to appear specially. In some cases the adjudicator actually helps the Creditor to stay on point, so a good ear and an understanding of what’s “really” being said is an advantage.
Magistrates and Judges are people too and know the deterioration of the democracy is not good for them or their families either (one Australia Judge even gave a speech about erosion of the peoples rights and the courts inability to keep up with legislation pouring out). Seeing more people as creditors, taking responsibility, resolving issues is good for the democracy and is good for the country. It will be these people the adjudicator will need to “test” to ensure they are the “real deal”.
Answers are in this colour. Additional commentary in this colour
Scenario 1: You’re in court as a Creditor and you have run an administrative process on the private side with an opposite party and now have an agreement:
A. The Judge asks who are you? Do you answer:
- Your name. Answering to the name means you have fulfilled a key requirement of the court and that a person by the name of Bob Jones has appeared. The person is a debtor for which no private remedy exists (unless rescued).
- A derivative of your name. Many like to use formats such as “Bob: of the Jones Family”, whilst this may appear to work initially, the contract can be quickly given up by other confirming questions from the adjudicator. It is also unclear what standing Bob: of the Jones family actually has over the PERSON DEBTOR, these are answers the adjudicator needs.
- Something else that isn’t your name. Correct. Firstly, The Adjudicator must ask who’s answering for the PERSON Trust, so nothing unusual here. However, you do not need to state a NAME, what the adjudicator is really looking for is in what capacity you are in. 99.9% of people will state their name and agree to be the PERSON DEBTOR DEFENDANT based on their actions or verbal communications. However, there’s no need to state a name – in fact do you really know your name? It would be appropriate to let the court know that you are here today as a Creditor/an Accommodation Party/a Man with a priority security interest in the PERSON DEBTOR NAME. Remember, the PERSON is an account (a trust), which you will have an interest in the account. If the court wants a name you could say “You may refer to me as Accommodation Party Bob”, or “You may refer to me as Bob”.
- None of the above, remain silent. Remaining silent will indicate tacit agreement or create controversy.
Additional Notes: If anyone calls you anything else other than what you’ve stated during the pre-hearing/hearing, remaining silent will give the presumption that you’re happy to accept the new name they’ve assigned, thus undermining your position and capacity. You may want to conditionally accept such advances: “I conditionally accept to be called Mr Jones on proof of claim that I’m not here today as an Accommodation Party merely to…..”
Note: Before entering Court, there will usually be someone outside of the courtroom marking names off the register as people enter. Again, do not provide the person name here. If you’ve already given notice that someone else will be specially appearing for the hearing, then the magistrate/judge knows this. The court staffer outside the courtroom may tell you that unless you give them your name then the case may not be called. As always, these are tests you’ll encounter along the way, so you may want to conditionally accept the offer on proof of claim that an Accommodation Party cannot attend the hearing and that the magistrate did not receive notice that an accommodation party will be specially appearing and that the staffer is not liable for obstructing justice. Walk in.
B. The Judge asks where do you live? Do you answer:
- Your Address
- A friends Address
- Refuse to answer by remaining silent
- None of the above. Correct. Another test. This is one of the key questions that helps destroy the capacity of the creditor/man. Most will answer with an address as this is what persons have been trained to do since school. A more suitable answer could be: “In this body”. How can you live anywhere but within your body? A distinction between spirit and body needs to be applied here. It may be fair to say that a body can live at a specific address, but a body cannot say or do anything without a mind and spirit. The body can also be considered property/surety in the person trust (eg registered via a birth certificate).
C. The Judge seems confused with your paperwork, he asks you to explain it. Do you answer:
- With an explanation.
- Quote a relevant Statute
- Provide a Conditional acceptance. Correct. Never explain or make statements in court…an authority never does. One could conditionally accept the offer to explain anything on proof of claim that the Judge does not have legal staff to provide legal advice. It could also be considered a contempt charge by trying to tell the judge the law. Adjudicators are experts in law and contracts – you don’t need to explain anything to them. Stay on point – your there to have the case dismissed because your private record has resolved the matter.
- None of the above, remain silent
Additional Notes: Look on the Home Page for “MP3 for the Weekend” posts, there are audios of people describing their experiences in court
D. The Judge says your paperwork seems to be copied from the internet. Do you answer:
- Help from a friend
- None of the above. Correct. If it’s your paperwork, then how can it be anybody else’s? In any case you can’t prove anything, the adjudicator is trying to create controversy…the Judge needs controversy in order to have jurisdiction – this is how the legal system works. You could answer with “Is there a record in opposition to the record that is before the court?”, get back on point, you’re there to have the case dismissed not to discuss where paperwork may or may not of come from or what time of day it is.
Additional Notes: This is a classic offer to disrupt your flow and undermine your confidence. Get back on point with what you’re there to do.
E. The Judge asks you to take a seat. What do you do?
- Sit down. Taking orders means you are no longer an authority.
- Refuse to sit down
- Ask if it’s ok to sit down. Correct. An authority does not take orders. The adjudicator can only talk to the PERSON. So you may respond with a question, “Is it ok if I sit over there?”. Another example, If the case is rescheduled and the adjudicator states the new date, you could ask “Is it ok if I attend as well?”
- None of the above
F. You’re asked a series of questions in court. What should you do?
- Answer all the questions accurately
- Don’t answer any of the questions
- State that you’re not here to answer questions
- None of the above Correct. Authorities don’t answer questions or make statements. You could conditionally accept an offer on proof of claim that….., or, you may say something like, “pursuant to the record that is before the court, has the matter not been resolved via the private record?”
Scenario 2: You’ve just finished your administrative process on the private side with an opposite party and now have an agreement. The next step is to go into court with your agreement and have the court dismiss the case:
A. It’s ok to bring your documents into the public court and submit them. True or False? FALSE. You must not bring Private Contracts into the public court as the record is Private. Private records go to the judge in chambers. In this specific example you could be in court as the PERSON and give instruction to the Judge to go in chambers and unseal the private record and review it.
B. You have your Private agreement in court and the Judge asks to see it. You hand the paperwork to a bailiff and after the Judge reads it he says he can’t understand it. Is the Judge telling the truth? True or False? TRUE. The Judge cannot see private records from another jurisdiction in the public court. As per above question, private records go to the judge in chambers.
C. The same Judge who just stated that he can’t understand your paperwork should be considered:
- Following the law and due process. TRUE. The Judge is following due process precisely as they should as they cannot “see” private records in the public court.
- None of the above
D. Should you enter the bar to give evidence to support your case. True or False? FALSE. You cannot give evidence in your own case by making statements or answering questions. Your authority is undermined in this situation.
E. Should you enter the Bar? True or False? TRUE. Enter the BAR under your terms. eg Is it ok to enter the bar with all my unalienable rights intact for the purpose to have the private record currently in chambers reviewed and publicly ratified.”
F. Should you testify in your case? True or False? FALSE. Your bias in your own case, it’s hearsay, so why undermine your authority? You should have a record that is before the court and your only purpose is to have the adjudicator enforce the record between the parties.
G. Should you let the court know who will be there prior to going. True of False? TRUE. This is by far a key cause of failures in court. You must give the court and the prosecution notice of who will be there and in what capacity. They are expecting a PERSON (DEBTOR) to attend, hence one may send (via the 3rd party presenter) a notice of conditional acceptance for the hearing on proof of claim that Accommodation Party with a priority security interest in the PERSON DEBTOR cannot specially appear to protect said interest in the PERSON DEBTOR and to have the private setoff publicly ratified for the purpose of dismissing the case.