What happens if you don't stand when a judge enters court?

I'm kind of sorry that this is getting started up again, but Hey, Free speech, and let's hear the other side. Unfortunately, in these legal matters the other side is wrong and can result in it's practitioners getting fined or jailed.

Please go to the linked website. You'll find links to court cases, rulings, assorted documents, in short, a very good legal seminar. Find your issue and then see what the Court has said about it. For example, Section X in the bottom half of the first page addresses the gold fringe flag issue. At least a dozen other Freeman claims are explored.

I'd really like to hear your comments after you've seen this site. Thanks.

Link to Freemen issueshome.hiwaay.net...

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Sorry to say,

There is definitely a penalty, whether you believe in that person's authority or not.

The court rules you in contempt - pay up or get arrested. Wrong, I know.

As I understand the US Justice System there is a jury trial, non-jury trial and tribunal system.

- The judge represents the law as it applies to the particular case. You stand when the judge enters or leaves as a sign of respect for the title and role, not the person who is filling it. As for being "subjugated" -- in fact, in this hypothetical situation, you are in fact already subjugated to the role the judge represents as proven by the fact you are in the courtroom.

- The jury (if there is one) represents the "people populous"... not the 4, 6 or 12 people in the jury, but the totality of the people who live under the law you are in court because of... Likewise, you stand when the jury enters or leaves as a sign of respect for "the people" and not the actual 4, 6 or 12 people that make up the actual jury.

The judge's function is to:

(1) identify the law(s) that apply to the case
(2) manage the process of the case (i.e. regulates attorney claims and arguments, keeps order, declares mistrial, etc)
(3) officially renders a verdict

The jury's function is to:

(1) decide if the law(s) identified by the judge have been broken.

*note* When a non-jury trial is being held (or a tribunal), then the judge functions as judge-and-jury.

So, deciding to stand or not is your choice -- if you decide to protest by remaining seated when the judge and/or jury enters the room, now you at least know what you are actually protesting. It isn't the particular people you see in the room your protest is aimed against, rather it is the system and the roles within that system they represent.

a reply to: notapersonorcitizen
What would happen if a person answered no in response to the question about understanding the charges against them?

I do think it's dumb. Why? It's one thing to actually break the law, like harm another person or damage public buildings or resist arrest, but it's a whole other thing to just not stand up when a judge enters the room.

What's crazier... the person who doesn't stand up when a judge enters the courtroom, or the people who think it matters?

What happens if we stop arresting criminals? Mayhem. What happens if a person in the courtroom doesn't stand up when the judge enters?

And what if that person who doesn't stand up does everything else they're asked to? No noises. Answer when questioned. And so on?

I don't know. Maybe not standing is disruptive in the sense it causes in the minds of the people in the courtroom a sense of interruption. It's kind of like if a kid in the class acts only slightly out of line, but just enough to cause problems because other kids did notice. So the teacher, knowing this problem can and often leads to others, acts swiftly to stem it.

It just feels misplaced to me. If someone starts screaming, ya, they're in contempt. But not standing? I don't know. It's like they want an extravagant display of obedience, as opposed to just doing what's necessary.

What happens if you don't stand up for the Judge? You may or may not be cited for contempt, depending on circumstances. But what certainly happens?

You irritate the Judge. Why anyone would think that's a good move is beyond me. He's making decisions about you, and you want to spit in his face? Wrong.

Secondly, there is usually an armed bailiff or policeman in the audience. Not a swift move to announce that you're likely to be a trouble maker.

Third, if there is a jury, you're announcing that you're a jerk at the time when you want to have friends there.

You risk a lot and get nothing for it. That is not a good deal.

a reply to: budaruskie

People have refused to stand for a judge and though i suppose they could be fined the judge usually just continues the trial. However i recommend not to do this since the judge is making a decision that could have life changing consequences and pissing them off may not be the best move. This was originally started as a prayer by the court for a fair judgement.

Man created governments and courts and as their creator is superior to them.
A man does not stand when his servant enters the room, period.
Before you refuse to stand for a judge in a court you'd have better submitted paperwork of a man too.

Freemen practice pseudo-law. The best a freeman can hope for in court is a stalemate. A freeman technically can never "win" in court.

i am not a freeman, i am a man. i do not devalue my self reference by capitalising it.

To learn how to be a man in court, first watch this video then watch the rest of Karl's videos. Karl will change your life.

www.youtube.com...

Hi just joined with the purpose of telling a very shakes tale in order to et to the truth of it and find some evidence.
I met an Irishman abroad who is in the legal community. He told me of an instance in court when a man did not rise three times. He also mentioned that being when this happens a Judge is forced to retire. Each time the judge enters he is introduced under a different title, I think the second was Pope.
The man in question apparently videos this but it is difficult to find. Maybe you know of it?
At a point police officers approached the man under direction to arrest him by which he asked the Police Sergeant "who are you sworn to serve?" And the man then directed the police by saying that he was put under threat but the court and the police then arrested the .. Bailif? The judge left the room.

The court was cleared and only this man was left. He then declared himself the judge and dismissed himself of all charges. Turns out he was found that morning of being guilty of failure to pay poll tax. The records showed that he was found innocent. Case closed.
🍻

Having been a Deputy Clerk of Court when I was straight out of college and still looking for a job in my field (I sat through too many trials to count on my lunch hours, just out of curiosity) - there are few people more ego-maniacal than a judge. They run their own little fiefdoms.

Just ask the convicted Atlanta educators/cheaters, who are serving more time than David Petraeus. Their judge was a looney toon.

I never thought standing when the judge enters the room was a big deal, just a sign of respect as a judge is in a position of power.

The last time I went to court for an arraignment, when it was my turn to go up, I plead Not Guilty and said that a lawyer was NOT necessary at this point, the judge asked if it was my first offense,(it wasnt, if it was they would have offered my a Pre-trial intervention which is like 6 months of probation, paying a monthly fee+ random drug tests, and if I didn't get in trouble and passed my tests the charges would be dropped).

The prosecutor then informed the judge I plead NOT Guilty(i think the judge wanted to hear no contest so I would have had to pay court and investigation costs). The prosecutors were talking among themselves and I looked over at them, at this time the bailiff came over to me and told me I have to keep my attention on the judge and not look at the prosecutors. I thought this was a ridiculous request and the bailiff was out of line to tell me this.

Needless to say, the judge tried to schedule a trial date but the prosecutors said a docket sounding was needed. A few days before I was to show up for the docket sounding, the charges were disposed by the prosecutor.

My question here, is that normal, was the bailiff out line for telling me I could not look at the prosecutors while they were discussing my case?

a reply to: notapersonorcitizen

When they ask if you "understand" the charges - that is the Court attempting to obtain jurisdiction - translation - "are you willing to submit and 'stand under' our authority"

Yes! All initial proceedings try to establish jurisdiction [over the defendant]. Always, Always, ALWAYS, challenge Jurisdiction.

"Once Jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdtiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

One can also read Hagans v. Levine, US v. Lopes; both voided because of lack of jurisdiction. Another good one on jurisdiction is Broom v. Douglas 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860.

Though, best to challenge at the offset, jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime. We have Basso v. Utah Power & LIght Co 495 F 2d 906, 910 to thank for that one.

To challenge jurisdiction, since once challenged, the 'burden of proof' really and truly does shift to the court [Rosemond v. Lambert 496 F 2d 416] : There are 7 elements of jurisdiction. [Abridged from this Link].

1. The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense.

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non- prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim. It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

He should have immediately objected to the Judge leaving. Should have never left when the judge said he was taking a recess. etc..etc.

Object to everything including terminology that requires a legal determination/conclusion.

For example, in traffic court one would object to the use of "driver" or "operator" or "vehicle"/"Motor Vehicle" as the use of these terms assume 'facts' that are not [written] in evidence and not before the court as evidence to be considered.

Their use presumes an understanding of the true legal meanings of these terms, and assumes their applicability to the actions of the accused.

It is in this presumption, that a legal conclusion is required for their use in the proceedings.