How to Argue with Judges!

Arguing with judges is like arguing with baseball umpires. You better know the rules AND HOW TO USE THEM! Here are a few rules from the Official MLB Rulebook: A player is not permitted to step or go into a dugout to make a catch. A player is permitted to reach into a dugout to make a catch. If a player makes a catch outside the dugout and his momentum carries him into the dugout, the catch is allowed as long as the player does not fall in the dugout. Simple enough? But! What if the players and the coaches on one team don't know the rules? What happens then? Will it do that team any good to argue with the umpire? Probably not! And all the %#$@&* will only get you thrown out of the park and possibly grounded for the season! To argue successfully with a baseball umpire or a judge on his bench in the courtroom, you must know the Rules of Court ... and how how to use them to your advantage! It's the bottom of the ninth. Two down. Batter at the plate. The count is three and two. The batter pops a high foul. You push back your catcher's mask and dash toward the dugout to make the catch. The ball hits your glove and you trip on the rim of the dugout and fall in. Scrambling to your feet, you climb back out of the dugout, ball in your upraised hand, triumphant grin on your face. Teammates cheer. Fans roar fanatic approval from the stands. But, the scornful look on the umpire's face and his raspy voice erase your victorious joy. "Foul Ball!" "But, I caught the ball, ump!" The player strides purposely toward the umpire, waving a fist, yelling obscenities, and spitting (of course). Fast behind is the coach, marching menacingly toward the umpire, cap shoved back, fists in the air, also shouting nasties and accusing the umpire of needing a new pair of glasses. The umpire stands firmly behind the plate, hands planted on his hips, and waits for the verbal onslaught. "I caught the foul ball. It's an out!" "It's a foul ball. Period!" the umpire insists. "You must be blind, Ump! It's an out! Game's over. We win! You saw me catch the ball? Jeeter couldn't do any better!" "Maybe not," the umpire insists, "but Jeeter knows the ground rules! You fell in the dugout. Catch doesn't count. Get back behind the plate where you belong!" "But. But. But." If you studied my affordable 24-hour Jurisdictionary lawsuit self-help course, you know that all the "buts" in the world won't do you a bit of good in court! Claiming you're pro se and should be allowed to play by different rules won't help, either! You either learn the rules - and how to use them to your advantage - OR YOU LOSE! Sending emails to friends after you lose or posting hateful comments on the internet complaining "All our courts are corrupt" just marks you as a loser. Learn the official rules and how to use them ... or lose! You can show up in court with all kinds of documents and things that you think are "admissible evidence". You can know the law is on your side. But! If you don't know the rules of evidence and rules of procedure - and how to use them to your advantage - you lose! There will be times when you'll need to argue with the judge about this or that, but do yourself a favor and discover what I learned practicing law in state and federal courts since 1986: unless you know the rules and how to argue the rules effectively, you have no more chance of changing a judge's ruling than the catcher who snags a foul ball in mid-air while falling into the dugout! The Rules RULE! End of story! Losers believe internet fables. Losers get their legal education at the barbershop or on websites or expensive weekend seminars run by people who never practiced law, never went to law school, and don't know mud from sand about the rules of court or how to use them to advantage. Too many good folks believe mythological silver-bullet easy solutions to their legal problems. As a predictable result, they are losing ... when they could be winning! A host of wannabe legal gurus infest the internet and barbershops with half-baked schemes that sound too good to be true ... and, like the old adage says, "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn't." You may have heard people claiming you can win by challenging a judge's oath of office, insisting a UCC lien can be used to create collateral for borrowers, insisting banks don't loan "real money", or that you can deny your citizenship and claim to be a "sovereign human being" above the law. It might work in small claims or traffic court ... but it will not carry the day for you in any kind of serious lawsuit or criminal case. Hope in one hand and spit in the other. See which hand gets wet. Learn how to use the rules! It's not expensive, and people who have my course tell us an 8th grader can learn it all in a single weekend. If you have a lawyer, you'll save thousands in legal fees by knowing what the lawyer should be doing ... and you'll maximize your chances for success by making certain the lawyer does what should be done, instead of taking you for a ride to the poorhouse - as happens to so many good people these days. If you don't have a lawyer, you'll know how to stop the opponent's crooked tricks and get the judge on your side! Here is the First Rule of Persuasion from "21 Principles of Persuasion" that may help?: 1. Persuasion is not Manipulation - Manipulation is coercion through force to get someone to do something that is not in their own interest.  Persuasion is the art of getting people to do things that are in their own best interest that also benefit you. HOWEVER,  key is knowing the rules and how to use them! To learn more, go to: www.Jurisdictionary.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "You MUST become and Advocate for Yourself and know the statutes, policies, etc. particular to YOUR Concerns to Defend Yourself and Protect your Precious Family." (Sidenote: Myself and others, when supporting others suggested going to court in anger will NOT win your case.) Also, check out our online Legal Terms>>Go Now ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,  GranPa Chuck   "We the "Little" People"     Defend Yourself http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/   My Family Reform Blog   My Family Rights Affiliation   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available "Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed. (Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)  Learn More>> Click Here

Transparency of CPS Vital - Demand Video Recording of ALL Interviews

"They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

In April 2013, police officers and a social worker from Sacramento County's Child Protective Services entered the home of Anna and Alex Nikolayev and took their baby, Sammy, away from them. They had no warrant.

Quickly Learn Court Procedure!

****

ReasonTV

Published on Aug 13, 2013

Subscribe 378K

"What they'd done was, basically, kidnapped our child with the help of police," says Alex Nikolayev. The young, first-time parents were not notified of where Sammy was being taken and wouldn't find out for a full 24 hours. According to the Nikolayevs, the dispute stemmed from the parents' desire to obtain a second medical opinion before subjecting Sammy to major heart surgery. 

The Nikolayev's story made national headlines thanks to footage from a camcorder Anna Nikolayev set up on the kitchen table. It also caught the attention of California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who spearheaded an audit of the agency.

"The secrecy by which CPS operates is a massive problem. Because when you have secrecy and unchecked power, you have a recipe for corruption and abuse," says Donnelly.

The secrecy surrounding CPS stems from the nature of California's juvenile dependency courts, which only allow limited press access and seal all court records. While media and other interested parties can petition the court to open the records, this can be a lengthy process and by no means guarantees results. ReasonTV petitioned the court to open the records in the Nikolayev's case and, almost two months later, we have still not received a ruling from the judge.

The issue of funding is one that many critics of CPS are quick to raise, most prominently and frequently by the late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer. While the funding incentives for any government agency are complicated and seemingly impossible to divine, Orange County Social Services Agency Director Michael Riley, who oversees Orange County CPS, testified in a deposition related to Hardwick's case that putting more children into the foster system can boost the agency's budget.

"Let's say you spend ten dollars a year. So, then, for the following year, your base then would be ten dollars," says Riley. The lawyer questioning Riley then points out that failure to use the entire base would result in a lowering of the base for the next year. He then asks Riley if the funding stream is tied to how many children they bring into Orange County's children's home, Orangewood.

"It's tied to the number of children we have in the foster system," says Riley.

We reached out to both Sacramento County and Orange County Social Services Agencies in the production of this story, and representatives with both were happy to talk with us. However, because of the closed dependency courts, neither representative could comment on details of specific cases. The absurdity of this charade reached such heights that Sherri Heller, who runs Sacramento County's Health and Human Services, told us that she could not even confirm nor deny that Sacramento County CPS was even involved in the Nikolayev case, despite widespread reporting and video evidence that it was. It's not just parents and children who suffer from the secrecy. CPS workers and their managers say they are not happy about this situation either and feel that more openness and transparency would help them to communicate their side of the story clearly.

"Most of us in this field are eager for the public to understand what happened and why," says Heller. "It is a source of great dismay to us when we are accused of hiding behind the confidentiality law."

In the immediate wake of the Nikolayev case, parents gathered in Sacramento to support the audit and testify in front of the audit committee. The audit is set to proceed in the next few months, and the auditor will choose three county agencies to examine. But for parents like Deanna Hardwick, who's experienced the power of this agency first-hand, a state-level audit is just the beginning of a broader movement towards transparency and accountability. Recent Parent Survey on Recording>>>>>>>

"Once the American people are able to be made aware that this is going on, I think that will be a real step forward towards making sure that there's accountability and making sure that the agency is working towards keeping families together rather than separating them," says Hardwick.

About 10 minutes.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Paul Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Weissmueller.

Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/08/12... for full text, supporting links, and downloadable versions.  And subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Learn "How To Win In     Court" ... without a lawyer  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck