Image via Wikipedia
Here’s a 5 minute video of a Canadian “sovereign” bumping heads with a local judge. The judge ultimately abandoned his bench and the “accused” seems to have won. But whether a seeming victory in one hearing is a final victory, remains to be seen. It’s entirely possible that the judge was simply flustered and “panicked”. It’s likely that the judge was slightly intimidated because the accused was not only fearless and knowledgeable, but that he was accompanied by six to ten “court watchers”.
I’ve seen it for years. If you’re in court by yourself, the judges are confident, arrogant, even openly contemptuous of your arguments and defenses. But when you bring a group of court watchers, and the judge knows they’re with you, his whole attitude changes. Bringing court watchers won’t guarantee that you win your case, but it will tend to compel the judge to treat you with respect. Once the judge is intimidated and loses his habitual arrogance, he’ll be “off his game” and more likely to “panic” and/or make fundamental mistakes.
The only thing this system fears is public exposure. When the “public” shows up to watch a particular case, the judges–being politicians–lose their inclination to bully the defendants and instead suffer some heightened anxiety.
There’s a reason for this. I don’t know what the law is in Canada, but I’m told that in the US, if you go to court and later testify that the judge said “F— you!” and the judge denies it, the system will take the judge’s word over yours. If you have one witness to corroborate your testimonry that the judge said “F— you!,” the system wil take the judge’s word over yours. But I’m told that if you have two or more witnesses with you–who are openly taking notes of the proceedings–and the judge says “F— you!” or commits any other abuse of his power or authority, your own testimony plus that of two or more witnesses will overcome the judge’s solitary denial of having violated your rights or having exceeded his own authority. In that case, the judge may be liable for civil or even criminal penalty.
Again, I’m only told that this consequence of bring two or more witnesses to your trial is valid. I don’t know it to be absolutely true. But it sounds plausible, and it would explain why judge’s tend to become “respectful” whenever a belligerent defendant is accompanied by a group of court-watchers.
The video clearly illustrates that the Canadian natives are becoming “restless”.
5:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WED2FilM0&NR=1 In fact, this first link was terminated about a day after I published this article. I commented on that termination in the “replies” below.
But on October 6th, one of my readers (Jethro; thanks again) found another live link to the same video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3uCaTQO-54.
For now, use this second link.
pete
October 5, 2010 at 8:51 AM
thank you Al.
adask
October 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM
My pleasure.
Jethro
October 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM
The linked video has been removed from YouTube. Do you know if it is posted elsewhere?
adask
October 6, 2010 at 6:10 PM
No–I don’t know where else it might be published.. The video must’ve been “too fine for prime time”. In fact, you can perhaps imagine from my brief description that the alleged “powers that be” might not want the “natives” to see evidence that it’s sometimes possible to successfully resist those alleged “powers”.
Our current gov-co’s power depends primarily on the people’s mistaken belief that “you can’t fight city hall”. That statement is mostly true to this extent: “YOU (singular) can’t fight city hall.” It takes an extraordinary man to successfully resist governmental power–even at the local level–all by himself.
On the other hand, “YOU (plural) absolutely can fight city hall”. That is, if you will band together, you can not only fight, but often defeat “city hall”.
It’s the whole idea of “politics”: group action. Currently, a small group of greedy, lying, treasonous whores have captured the levers of power in our alleged “government”. They will continue to exercise and exploit that power until another group forms that is larger or at least stronger and determined to wrest power away from the current governmental gangsters.
The video from Canada illustrated that point. A new “group” of about ten activists showed up in court to support one relatively fearless spokesman. The judge resisted briefly and then simply abandoned his bench.
We talk about “legal reform” and the need to study the laws to compel the courts and government to obey the law, but the study of law is primarily useful for our own edification and to give us confidence in the righteousness of our cause. The real battle will not be fought by means of litigation–it will be fought be means of political action–people banding together to work in concert against the existing “powers”.
Jethro
October 6, 2010 at 7:46 PM
Is this the same video perchance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3uCaTQO-54
adask
October 6, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Yep. That’s it. Thanks Jethro.
I’ll replace the original link in the article with the new link.
This is just a small illustration of people beginning to act in groups rather than as isolated individuals. In a sense, that’s what the internet has allowed us to do and to become: political associations rather than isolated (and often frightened) individual men and women.
mAximo
October 7, 2010 at 8:04 PM
The Declaration of Independence noted that the ‘free System of English Laws’ was
abolished in a neighboring province’ and that is where the video took place. While
the common law system was re-established in English Canada, it wasn’t in Quebec (as
it remained under the Roman civil law system) nor in the U.S. so that ‘Keith’ may
assert his common law rights in Guelph, but no more in Montreal than anywhere in
the mainland U.S. Yet he wrongly referred to himself as a sovereign in what is still
a feudal monarchy. Please click on my screen name to find out more. William the
Conquerer kicked off the drive to replace common law entirely by Roman civil law,
which wasn’t fulfilled until King George, such that separation of attorney & state
was abolished, so making them officers of the Crown like the trial lawyers
(barristers). Prior to that attorneys were the legal agents of the People, and
became so once again in Canada. So the judge was asking if Keith was acting as an
‘agent’ in order to treat him in the capacity of an attorney, which would
then allow application of laws allowing attorneys to approach the bar in non-
-trial matters. The judge needed to know what pigeon-hole to place ‘Keith’ in
order to know how to adminster codified common law procedure. By refusing to
be recognised as an agent, nor by his full name, Keith left the judge in an
impasse.
tdr
October 7, 2010 at 9:49 PM
wow, i have been waiting for all this to go mainstream. most people i talk to wont listen to what is really happening in our courts. thanks and keep up the good work.
adask
October 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM
This blog is a long ways from “mainstream,” but I’m glad to help as best I can.
worldtraval
December 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Hello Adask, Good job on your work, honestly well done this is clear and concise what you are doing. However that link to the Youtube (elite tube) has been removed once again. Isn’t it amazing how Youtube can get away with all the piracy downloads but yet everyone else gets brought to court.
Anyways could you post the video again. You could use a piece of software by the way called FINAL DOWNLOADER to down load the video and keep putting it up there on vimeo etc and then get others to also start putting this video up every where through them also setting up accounts, now that would send the message to youtube to stop acting like the wankers that they are.
Adask
December 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM
I work about 60 hours a week. I need to work about 80 to keep up. If the videos have been removed or the links no longer work, eeese nah mah yob to feex it. Just don’t have the time to chase every detail.