3 ways courts trick people into accepting liability

3 ways courts trick people into accepting liability

So how do people respond to this knowledge? Well for one thing, I remind everyone that anyone who claims that magic pieces of paper can save you, is only going to make matters worse, because the contract for surety is almost always verbal and if you have not done the work to learn and become competent, then nothing can save you.


You need to recognize what is happening to contract you as surety.

When a police officer or judge asks, “do you understand the charges?” they are offering you to contract as surety, without all the facts. If you say “no”, then they process the bond anyway with you being “determined” to be a belligerent or suffering some mental incapacity. So arguments of “I do not consent” have no effect against this automated system anymore.

There is only one way to answer unreasonable demands – by responding with questions that highlight the unreasonableness and absurdity and cruelty of what they are doing. For example:

Judge: Do you understand the charges against you?”

Accused: “Will you be disclosing to me the essential facts to this matter first, so I can reasonably answer that question?”


“How can anyone reasonably be expected to answer such a question if they be denied the basic right[(s)] of disclosure of all the facts first?”

This entry was posted in Common Law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.