The Law Must Not Be Questioned

The Law Must Not Be Questioned

If individual members of society were to question the law, society would devolve into chaos. Mass anarchy would ensue. Murderers would be running wild in the streets. Armed thugs would be breaking into peoples homes. Rapists would take up permanent residence in college dormitories. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

I reject these arguments and you should to if you believe in a constitutional government that protects individual liberties.

The argument goes that only the Supreme Court can determine the law, or lower courts adjudicating on past decisions. That members of society are simply too dumb to determine what constitutes a legitimate law. If individual police officers were to stop enforcing laws they felt violated the constitution, chaos would ensue. If jurors were to stop convicting people for laws they felt violated the constitution, chaos would ensue. If judges were to throw out cases based on laws they disagreed with, chaos would ensue.

I shall present evidence to the contrary. Indeed I believe we MUST question all laws in order to have a healthy society that protects individual rights.

Let us look at our glorious Supreme Court as the first example of why putting all faith in our robed overlords is a bad idea. The Supreme Court, of course, is a federal court. They are paid by federal tax dollars. They are appointed by presidential nomination. The president has no incentive to put forth nominees that believe in limited federal power. If anyone can give me even ONE reason as to why a president should put forth a nominee that believes in limited federal power, I’ll eat my shorts and post a video of it on YouTube. At best it could be argued he might have incentive if it was his first term and he was looking to get re-elected.

The Supreme Court justices also have no incentive to rule in favor of states or the people when determining cases. Since they are paid by federal taxes and depend upon the vast mechanisms of the federal justice system to give them continued purpose, it becomes clear they have incentive to rule AGAINST individual or states rights in favor of federal power.

Of course, this is not a blanket statement. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of state and individual rights on numerous occasions. However, this does not change the fact that no real incentive exists for them to do so, other than the fact they could cause an insurrection if they took too much liberty away at once.

Let’s look at some past examples of the Supreme Court upholding individual rights.

On blacks being protected citizens of the US:

“They [African Americans] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
-Chief Justice Roger Taney

On racial segregation:

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”
-Justice Henry Billings Brown

On the government’s authority to forcibly sterilize “imbeciles” and force vaccinations:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

On the federal government’s authority to govern every aspect of commerce:

“It is established beyond peradventure that the Commerce Clause of Art. I of the Constitution is a grant of plenary authority to Congress. That authority is… the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.”
-Justice William Rehnquist

Given the above egregious examples, it’s clear that the Supreme Court has acted not only against the people in the past, but as a servant of tyranny fit to be compared with the likes of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

The original Ordinance of 1787 set the precedent by which the United States would expand westward across North America by the admission of new states, rather than by the expansion of existing states. The Ordinance also included a provision banning slavery in these new states, as well as many of the enumerated rights found in the Bill of Rights.

The question becomes why would the founding fathers establish new individual states over simply one massive expanding state? Because they knew that the freedom to vote with your feet would play an important role in keeping government tyranny in check. When the federal government enacts laws, there is no where to run.

Thomas Jefferson writes in the Kentucky Resolution that states MUST have the right to nullify federal laws in order to keep tyranny in check:

“… that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

James Madison seconds Jefferson’s views in the Virginia Resolution:

“The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.”

We know without a shadow of a doubt that the framers of our government intended for states to have the authority to nullify federal law that falls outside the explicitly enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. They knew that without the power to nullify, states would be nothing more than subjects to a tyrannical crown. Common sense tells us this – since why would a state government willingly give up all power to a federal government by signing on to a constitution that eliminates all of their sovereignty? While all the framers felt that the federal government had the authority to act against the states regarding laws that fell within the enumerated 17 powers granted the federal government in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, anything that fell outside of that was clearly under the authority of the states.

Continuing on with individual members of our society acting to nullify bad laws; just as states were intended to be able to nullify bad federal law, individuals charged with upholding law were also intended to be able to nullify ALL bad law for the exact same reasons.

There is an important distinction that must be highlighted between NULLIFYING a law and CREATING a law. By choosing to not enforce a law, a member of society is not imposing new restrictions upon society. By nullifying a law through inaction, a person can not legalize an action for everyone, only the State can do that. However, a person could stop the unjust prosecution of a law. For example, it’s basically illegal in California to shoot anyone in the back for any reason. If an intruder breaks into a person’s home and the homeowner shoots that individual in the back thinking he was turning to reach for a weapon, a jury could nullify his conviction, even though he is technically guilty of the crime. The action of voting “not guilty” does not suddenly legalize murder.

The most common argument against nullification is that individuals are too stupid to determine what constitutes a bad law. Common sense tells us this is a ridiculous argument. Intelligence plays little role when deciding if a law is just or unjust – what must be argued is the morality and self-preservation of the general population. Morals play the key role in making a personal decision to nullify a law, not intelligence. Even a person with the intelligence of a 5 year old knows it’s wrong to hurt other people. Does anyone honestly think that any member of society would choose to let a murderer go free that is clearly guilty of the crime? People have a built in incentive NOT to do so, since they may be the next victim of his violence if they do. Even if you put a convicted murderer in the jury of another murderer, it’s highly doubtful that he would nullify a murder conviction if the defendant was guilty.

Individual nullification was used to assist runaway slaves. People acting against what they felt were tyrannical laws are what established the underground railroad. Individual nullification was used to prevent political writers that spoke out against the crown from being imprisoned prior to the revolution. In fact individual nullification has a LONG history of preventing injustice, compared to very little history of causing injustice.

continued.

Speaking on slavery, Wisconsin actually declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. What a great thing! Should Wisconsin simply have blindly obeyed federal decree? In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction.

Individuals and states that are empowered with nullification, in the long run, always create a healthier, freer, state. I would even argue that had the southern states been allowed to keep slavery as they intended, slavery would have been eliminated without 700,000 American’s dying in a brutal civil war along with the nation being impoverished by the massive destruction of resources. Eventually mechanized cotton cultivation would have made slavery unnecessary and the southern states would have rejoined the union peacefully – without half a million dead Americans and decades of residual animosity. No other country in the world required a civil war to end slavery.

In our history even the Supreme Court was not so blind as to see the benefits nullification brings to society.

The jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge…” (U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1139 (1972).)

A federal court of appeals summarizes: “If the jury feels the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the action of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision.” (United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006 (4th Cir. 1969).)

The court was re-affirming what John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, told jurors: they possess “a right…to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” (Georgia v. Brailsford 3 Dallas 1, 4 (1794).)

More on the case history of nullification can be found here:
www.fija.org...

So in summary I say we must all question what laws are just and what laws are unjust. What makes a law just? I say only those laws that protect our natural rights from infringement by others – including government. There must be a victim for a law to be just. Victimless crimes against the State are a tyranny that must be confronted. Laws that usurp power from the states and from the people are a tyranny that must be confronted. Blindly following the letter of the law can only lead to enslavement. Jefferson gives us a clear definition of what laws are just when he said “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Question Authority


-----------

Originally posted on Fascist Soup
Authored by me, and replicated here in full with my permission.
This post may be duplicated and reproduced anywhere.

Law only exists for the same reason freedom dose. We created it.

Personally i do not follow the law, i follow whats right and there are some things in the law that just aren't right.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The constitutional State is a balance between cultural cohesion and punishment through justice. I don't kill any person just because I get angry, partly because I've been taught it's a bad thing to do, and partly because if I did, I know I'd most likely spend a lot of years in prison. So I avoid killing as much as I can.

The relationship between culture and punishment essentially defines the nature of a society. In totalitarian societies leaders don't trust the public culture, so they enforce legal standards ensuring total obedience to common laws. In a mostly free society like America or Sweden there is a tradition of trusting the community, e.g. civil society, to deal with laws and morals.

A society that regulates its citizens too much is a product of a weak culture. It's no coincidence that Sweden is the most far gone welfare society in the world, as well as the most anti-cultural and anti-nationalistic place to live. It no longer emphasizes public interaction and consequences of individual action. Instead it relies on a gigantic welfare bureaucracy, designed to ensure everyone keeps in line, or else.

That "or else" in most societies means punishment. Committing a crime therefore rests upon a risk evaluation: Can I get away with this crime without there being a notable risk involved in me getting caught? This is why a society like America wants to cut back on the number of laws and is libertarian-oriented; if individuals are free to enact more impulses without breaking any law, fewer crimes can be committed and less government force needs to be involved. This is how Ron Paul argues when he's trying to legalize drugs. If people do it and they don't hurt anyone, why not let them do it?

But there's a problem involved with the freedom argument. The less guidelines and moral standards set by public culture or the State, the less cohesive the society will be, which in turn means there's greater risk of insecurity, corruption and anarchy. No society wants that. The only way to solve this problem is to emphasize public culture and the civil society, while backing it up with government force. Traditionally this is how we must understand ancient Greek political philosophy, Roman law, Christian morality, and the development of the Western civilization into tyranny, starting with Europe.

Freedom is always worth fighting for, but only if we stand together.

reply to post by concernedcitizan

Freedom is always worth fighting for, but only if we stand together.

Strikes me as an inherently Orwellian argument.

Freedom does not originate in a collective group, it originates in the individual.

"only if we stand together" implies that if the collective borg hive agrees on an action, those opposed must be subjugated to the will of the majority.

A state, or any group of people for that matter, has no right to impose their will on others that have not acted against their civil or property rights.

Punishment is only justified when someone violates the rights of another.

reply to post by mnemeth1


With the growing totalitarian methods of our current democratic societies, where people are being bugged, phone calls are being tapped and surf habits on the web are being documented (it's to "enhance" your "freedom," remember?), people today are getting very critical of any present authority. Children learn that leadership is Nazism and discrimination, and that they should be their own masters to lead the future liberal society into a new golden age of economical progression. Will they make it?

According to the anarchist logic, they will. Anarchism believes that society functions best when we have no State authority and people are allowed to do what they please. For most people, this sounds a lot like our society today: as long as you drag your butt to work every day at eight o'clock in the morning and pay your bills, you're free to do most things, especially if you've got money to cover for it. Anarchism could therefore in many ways be seen as an off-shot of liberalism, where the individual and his/her intentions are trusted to be able to co-operate in a social group and administer itself without someone to tell them what to do.

For anyone who's been in a class room today, or worked on a large business project with several co-workers, or taken the family out on a week's vacation, it's more or less obvious that many people have a problem performing a task or taking care of their personal problems, without someone to either guide them or tell them explicitly what to do. But, like with all things, power can be abused or become corrupt, and this is the kind of authority we should be attacking; the false power that doesn't serve a higher purpose beyond the interest of a few individuals.

Anarchists have a point though: our society today is corrupt, because it forces people through dogma to think in a certain way, due to a lack of consensus on why we're here, which values to uphold, and how to move forward. Loss of direction internally means the State has to oppress people externally.

Like most things in life, some things are true, some are not. Not all leadership is "bad," just because our leaders today are corrupt - and knowing most of the problems are caused by people who don't know what they want nor know how they will solve the mess they've put us all in, the solution could no way be a leadership-free society. No such society exists, for there is always power, only in different forms. What we need, and the intelligent anarchists agree, is to remove the authority that serves no purpose, create consensus among people, and install new leadership based on what's good for the whole, thus ensuring true freedom.

reply to post by concernedcitizan

What we need, and the intelligent anarchists agree, is to remove the authority that serves no purpose, create consensus among people, and install new leadership based on what's good for the whole, thus ensuring true freedom.

Considering I fall into the "anarchist" camp, I feel your arguments are an exercise in Orwellian logic.

I don't need anyone to lead me.

Period.

I don't require a nanny.

Period.

I don't need anyone to lord over me or tell me how I should live my life. That is strictly my business. I should be free to do anything I please, as long as whatever it is I am doing does not infringe on the civil or property rights of others.

Governments sole purpose should be to protect my civil and property rights from infringement by others.

Government serves no other puropose other than this.

This sphere of action is what defines freedom. For government, or anyone else, to enter my sphere and order me about when I have not infringed on the civil or property rights of another is the antithesis of freedom.

I don't think you fall into the anarchist camp, especially considering you said "government should...".

You sound more libertarian than anarchist. Personally I think a lot of libertarians are anarchists who figured out anarchy can't not exist in a populated nation/area, at all.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Personal responsibility is indeed a virtue. Nothing is more satisfying than to take responsibility for my accomplishments and for those failures that I cannot justify putting off on someone or something else.

There should be a balance between govt. interference and personal liberty but as we see in the current economic bubble burst, there are precious few people who, given the chance, won't try to take advantage of liberty at the expense of everyone else. That's true from the top tier of humanity ( socioeconomically speaking ) to the bottom. It seems to me to be a Catch- 22 situation; without govt. we'd be back in the caves, and with govt. we're always having to push to keep it at bay.

As I see it, we are animals with genetic drives toward selfishness that our bigger brains can add huge levels of complexity to ( hence what we refer to as civilization, religion, family, and organizations of all sort ). We use these forms of organization to enhance our chances of survival as a group because we are social by design. We play along because as individuals we wouldn't last long without them.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I don't think you fall into the anarchist camp, especially considering you said "government should...".

You sound more libertarian than anarchist. Personally I think a lot of libertarians are anarchists who figured out anarchy can't not exist in a populated nation/area, at all.

No, I fall into the anarchist camp. I favor the total dissolution of all government that is not voluntary. I think society would get along just fine without people empowered to lord over others. We see the American Indians managed to get along just fine prior to the arrival of the Europeans without a police force or central government.

Was their society perfect? Of course not. Would anarchy lead to a perfect utopia? Of course not. However, I feel such a society would be far healthier and freer than one where arbitrary people are given more rights than the average citizen.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, I fall into the anarchist camp. I favor the total dissolution of all government that is not voluntary. I think society would get along just fine without people empowered to lord over others.

Perhaps that might be true, but then again perhaps not. I'm more inclined to lean towards the latter, especially in this day in age where the type of lifestyle we would have would be easy pickings for even the most militarily poor nation.

We see the American Indians managed to get along just fine prior to the arrival of the Europeans without a police force or central government.

Sure, but this nation wasn't designed to have very much government anyway, so the founders tended to get close to your views without losing everything.

I have very serious doubts that any plan or model for this type of thing couldn't be utterly distroyed with even a casual discussion, but I'm always game.

Was their society perfect? Of course not. Would anarchy lead to a perfect utopia? Of course not. However, I feel such a society would be far healthier and freer than one where arbitrary people are given more rights than the average citizen.

In terms of freedom, you're correct. This would ensure maximum freedom, and all the dangers that entails. Some government would prevent the worst of those things.

In terms of healthier, that is debatable between the modern medical evolution/breakthroughs and living with less toxins/poisons that we deal with.

It would be interesting, but I think (again) there is a better balance that could be struck.

Just to be clear, I am a pretty strong libertarian, so I'm on your side, but just don't go as far as you might.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by KrazyJethro


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Your comment that we would be "easy pickings for even the most militarily poor nation" falls flat on its face when we look at Afghanistan. Complete shat hole run by dozens of tribal governments that managed to fend off a full force Soviet invasion and is now standing up to the entire might of the American military.

Vietnam

Korea

Etc. etc.. etc..

Given that the public is literally armed to the teeth in this nation, a foreign power would have to be insane to attempt an invasion.

It's obvious that individual responsibility doesn't rank very highly in a society where people are used to complete, bureaucratic involvement. I quietly sat down and observed how students at my university program freaked out when they realized they had to contact employers and find a trainer spot at a work place. At this point three basic types of people emerge: people who immediately begin working, people who freak out and anxiously hope someone else will bail them out from the task, and people who simply can't be bothered and believe it'll be taken care of anyhow.

If you can eliminate 2/3's of the population, then we'll have a chance.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by KrazyJethro

 

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There's no need to quote these at me, I am a very stanch believer in these principles. I recommended giving up no "essential liberties" nor did I complain about the dangers of liberty.

Regardless, they exist and I merely point them out as they require attention.

Your comment that we would be "easy pickings for even the most militarily poor nation" falls flat on its face when we look at Afghanistan. Complete shat hole run by dozens of tribal governments that managed to fend off a full force Soviet invasion and is now standing up to the entire might of the American military.

Vietnam

Korea

Etc. etc.. etc..

Given that the public is literally armed to the teeth in this nation, a foreign power would have to be insane to attempt an invasion.

This is true, however one does not need to invade to kill. Technology exists today that can kill millions without stepping foot on our soil.

Even if they did invade, the death toll would be high on our end, the battle would be drawn out (as most large scale gorilla wars are) and we could still lose.

These are things that need to be taken into account. Guns are not the cure-all in international wars.

This is true, however one does not need to invade to kill. Technology exists today that can kill millions without stepping foot on our soil. Even if they did invade, the death toll would be high on our end, the battle would be drawn out (as most large scale gorilla wars are) and we could still lose. These are things that need to be taken into account. Guns are not the cure-all in international wars.

Yeah, but living in fear of some attack out of the clear blue for no reason is NOT something I subscribe to.

The founding fathers established the US to have NO standing army at all. The army was only to be called into existence if the threat of invasion was imminent.

Do you think the Swiss are sitting around worried that someone is going to lob a nuke at them for no reason?

Of course not.

Quit living in fear.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, but living in fear of some attack out of the clear blue for no reason is NOT something I subscribe to.

I agree and I do not live in fear. Quite the opposite actually. I go through great pains to eliminate emotion from my political standings, including fear.

It's not a way to operate or hold intellectually honest opinions.

The founding fathers established the US to have NO standing army at all. The army was only to be called into existence if the threat of invasion was imminent.

Agreed. In this day in age, however, I don't see a rational way to divide the military up. It might be better to have a more wholistic discussion about what structure you propose or support because it sounds like you like the original US model.

If that's true I tend to agree but have had to make some concessions due to modern technology and conditions.

Do you think the Swiss are sitting around worried that someone is going to lob a nuke at them for no reason?

Of course not.

No, however they are all trained (which is doable here but not under the present system) and remain strictly neutral (also not happening here anytime recently).

Quit living in fear.

Please don't misunderstand my point as fear. I only try to be pragmatic and point out the reality of the situation.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


I don't mean to be argumentative with you. I'm so high strung about what's going on right now that I might come off that way.

It looks like we predominately agree for the most part.

I don't think we will have much to argue about in the near future as this country implodes into economic chaos. I think we will all end up living in anarchy anyways, just not the peaceful co-existing kind.

reply to post by mnemeth1



I will certainly agree with you in one point - I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

But I will also say that laws exist not for individuals - but for the moronic masses themselves. A person is smart, people are dumb, stupid, panicky animals. (love ya Tommy Lee Jones!)

So it is from this that we, as a civilization, derive the need for laws. Law is just a word, as well, that describes a thought process that says there are negative consequences for someone who does something that is considered bad, immoral, or wrong.

I have no evidence, but i'd say it's safe to assume that this predates written record, and perhaps even further into early man where Gruk was slammed in the skull with the femur bone from a big mammal because Grem's girlfriend was found in Gruk's cave.


Law exists because we needed it. And still do.
Law exists in the natural world. Watch the animal planet channel sometime, see how many animals die for breaking natural laws of etiquette.

Without law, who is to say what is right or wrong? The line between right & wrong becomes VERY blurry when there are no consequences involved. And through time, that line all but fades away.

Want proof?

Visit any office building in this country and see how many employee's have taken pens, paper, paperclips, staples, staplers, and printer ink.

All of which is 100% wrong. But since it's so easy to get away with - people do it anyways. Businesses are protected, however, in the sense that *if* they catch people doing it, they can be fired & arrested.





[edit on 25-2-2010 by Snarf]

Some of the Conservative Supreme court justices actually agree to some extent with the OP. Justice Thomas was part of a minority that wanted to uphold California's medical marijuana laws because Thomas felt that states should have more rights. He had a couple other conservative judges join him.

Your general post is correct. But to clarify, there are almost NO real LAWS whatsoever! All most 100% of what are called "Laws" ie statutes, regulations, acts, ordinances, policies, etc.. are not laws so far as apply to an ordinary individual in their life. These are contract laws not criminal laws. Or they amount to criminal laws applied to employees of the state by contract of employment. The twisted thinkers have created an incredibly criminal system. The current Judicial System is so profoundly criminal it is beyond belief. The average person only has a faint acquaintance with this system and really have no idea just how corrupt and criminal it is. What it comes down to is local communities are either very poor with few jobs or large cities with lots of people to fleece. Either way the Judiciary has leveraged the opportunity and in pretty much any city the police/court system is the biggest crook around.

First off "Law" is what the "Jury" says it is! That is the fact. The Jury IS the law. Plea bargaining is not only unconstitutional but it's very goal is to fleece the suckers with extortion threats and bypass the Jury (the law makers). There is nothing in the constitution or the Judiciary act that grants a Judge the power to lock someone up without any due process of law but they do this all the time, it's called "Contempt of Court". Contempt of court is usually equivalent to baring free speech. Judges routinely treat people as part of an assembly line with no effort what so ever to identify the law, jurisdiction or the court. In fact, in most cases, the court has none of the three. Which is exactly why they cover it up. A Judge should be a minor actor in court facilitating the process. But in the Corporate State, the Judge sets themself up to dictate to the Jury. In most cases the Jury never sees the "Law" that is in question.

Some Judges are even paid commissions by the state on top of salary for such little details as getting convictions. The various thefts by the Judiciary pay the IMF as well as investor community. Most police departments as well as cities are corporations listed on the stock market.

Further more the "Attorney" is an officer of the court and a team player in the Bar system. "attorn" means to turn over property to the king. The Bar is a private society that now dictates to all branches of government. Attorneys, in may cases get kickbacks for funneling a customer through the system carefully avoiding any challenges to it's "Lawfulness". The Attorney is subservient to the Judge and careful to work with his boundaries. Hiring an attorney is actually declaring yourself incompetent to conduct your own defense. In traffic courts if you don't come in with a lawyer the Judge declares everyone else there as "Pro Se" or more or less a ward of the court. Which means the Judge gains leverage to help you make a plea. Every can and should represent themselves in all "Criminal Matters" as "Pro Per" (Inpropria Personum) or representing the accused. AKA Sui Juris.

You can add to that the fact that your home, your car, your child are viewed by the state as state property and not really yours. Since Post-Civil war people a property of the state (or feds really) as is everything else and it's under "Corporate" control and the Master corporation is "The United States Government".

Corporations and the False Laws and False Judiciary are dead in the law, they are fictions and not reality. It is a carefully orchestrated play, a mind game to deceive. it is a scam, a fraud that has been perpetrated for over 150 years! The living law IS the individual.