Transcription
Evidence is the backbone of all court cases. Without evidence, no case can be won, either by those bringing a claim against you or by you, the one attempting to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Evidence is a type of law of its own. Because it's a type of law of its own, it is implemented into the scope of duty of every acting judge. They are bound by it, and it ties them back to the constitution because most rules of evidence, not all of them, but the majority of them that you will put into use, are in fact constitutional.
So, as an example, most people who have found a new path to freedom realize, "Okay, I can begin to speak up. I can begin to do one thing or the other." But you set a standard in the past where you've put in so many types of different paperwork because you are mixing and matching. Because you were going to people who gave it a sweet, swift talk, sounded good, but in truth, there were wolves looking to eat you and suck your blood. They gave you all this paperwork. They make all this paperwork for you to put into that venue, and the other party realized very quickly, "Oh, you're one of those that don't quite get it. Good. We'll make you hurt along the line." You realize, "Oh no, I'm hurting. This is time-consuming. I've screwed up everything. What I've put in the past is not working." So now you finally realize, "Oh, this is the right way," and you begin to do it the right way.
One of their defenses that they will hit you with that will hit very hard is the psychological evaluation. Because one, you're not going to first put in all that trash and now I want to hold someone liable. No, no, no. They're not going to let you off loose. Now you have to prove yourself. That's why your entry game is very important. Your entry game must be very strong. Your entry game determines the pace in which everything else will go. You have higher chances of success if your entry game was strong and in the middle you kind of messed up a little bit and you pick it back up, rather than your entry game being weak and you now trying to pick it back up. Your entry game determines the tempo, the temperament, and the pace of how everything will go, how serious they will take you, how much you're going to make them shake, how much you're going to compel them to perform.
So if your entry game was not strong, despite whatever you think you were doing, or however strong you think your entry game was, or however much you had somebody lead you on and encourage you with some hype talk, you finally figured all that is not really doing much for you. The case has been going on for two, three years. They've issued warrants. You've been wasting time, and you've been wasting a lot of money, either litigating and mitigating it with the opposing party or attempting to get some assistance from people who got you deeper into the rabbit hole. So they will throw a psychological evaluation on you. The more mild form of that is a "feretta" here where they say, "Okay, let's see if you're competent enough to get an attorney." If they really want to do you one real good, they will do a psychological evaluation on you for the purpose of a couple of things.
First purpose is to drag the case on so they could keep cashing in. Once those maturity dates and assignments kick in. Two, seven examples out of you to break your will. Three, to train their underling that this is how you deal with one of these people over here that comes talking a bunch of trash. And four, to create a restaurateur that they can use against another man or woman coming behind you online.
But here's your response, very simple. Rules of evidence. Evidence is the backbone of every case, but this applies with every scope. So think not in a unilateral manner. Think from a wide scope. This instant, in this example that I'm giving, is just one. Although it's one, it's nonetheless very common, especially with beginners, when they do a psychological evaluation. Here's your very simple response: That psychological evaluation is based off of rules of evidence. Believe it or not, they're not going to use the verbiage. They're not going to tell you, but they are using the dynamics of evidence law against you. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, go look up different types of law. Evidence is a type of law to its own. So to all you people looking into going into equity, if you don't understand this, you are fooling yourself. If you don't know these foundational basics, you just jump in a hype train. Don't do that.
Nonetheless, they will use the law of evidence against you. They won't tell you they are. Don't just say, "Alright, we're going to do a behavioral clinical examination on you to see if you're fit for trial." When in truth, you've been saying this whole thing is unconstitutional, at least you intend to say it's unconstitutional. And so, because it's unconstitutional, there's no fact to be tried, undisputable, no subject matter, personal territory, jurisdiction, or all of them, given the unconstitutional nature of the proceeding, the claim brought against me, one way or the other. But if you're not saying all that, or even if you are, they're still going to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. We, before we do all that, we still have to make sure you're fit for trial." And they will ride that all the way on that fit for trial.
That behavioral examination they're trying to do is based on a testimony expert. They're trying to get someone with a medical degree to come in and say, "Yes, this man or woman is fit based on my observation, based on my knowledge and skill and experience and training and education. I am the expert. This man or woman's behavior pattern is synonymous with somebody who is a sovereign citizen. They don't believe in the law at all, and they don't believe in following the law. So it's not going to be orderly for the court, and he cannot be afforded due process if we're not enforcing the law. So in order for us to afford them due process, here I am as a professional, aka expert in the medical field, to observe this man or woman's behavior in this court." And that result, which is going to be preserved by a stenographer, either a medical one or the one hired by the court, then they're going to use that as evidence to say, "Well, according to this expert witness, you're not fit." So we're just going to throw an attorney on you, or we're not warranted. We are now warranted and allowed to do an ex parte, and they're going to hank of you and drain your life. You don't want that.
And here's their flaw with using an expert testimony called a psychologist who will do the behavioral clinical examination. "Scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trial facts understand evidence or to determine the factor issue." Bam, that's the qualifying factor right there. If there is a scientific, technical, or special knowledge that will assist the judge, which is the acting judge, which is a trial fact, to understand the evidence or to determine the fact, meaning a science, technique, or unique knowledge will assist them to look at the facts, facts that already exist, to understand the evidence, to determine the fact in the issue, then a witness qualifies as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, aka the psychologists who will be doing the behaviors clinical examination, may testify there to in a form of an opinion or otherwise.
So the question is, does your enforcement of the constitution require some scientific or technical specialized knowledge to be determined to be able to determine the fact? How does that psychologist doing the behavioral clinical examination, how do they assist in determining the fact? They don't. Because the fact that say they're they're charging you with a firearm, right? That that is subject matter. So what then does that psychologist have to do with the subject matter of whether you have the right to bear arms or not? They don't.
Remember, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trial or effect, aka acting judge, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact and issue, these are limited to the subject matter of what's going on. And if they're saying they need to do a behavioral clinical examination because to see if you're a fit or not, something must have predominantly warranted that in the first place, unless they first let you know what that is, then they cannot do this. And what are those things? They give it to you in the rules of evidence. Now, this is Illinois Rule 702. The Federal Rules of Evidence, they give you more details.
Hey, and also, don't forget to join my Patreon. If you haven't, there I go through documents that I have used personally successfully and videos that I do not post here on YouTube that are in many ways private in nature. And also, I go through live audio interactions and video interaction of my own experience for certain things. And I also have a website where you can go through a list of documents or services if you need them. And these videos that are posted on YouTube are also uploaded on Anchor. You can listen to it via audio. Memes and there's an Instagram page and a Facebook page. The link is on the screen and in the description. Take care and best of luck.
In Rule 706, appointment process, on a party's motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nomination, meaning they need your consent. Then, before they go ahead and jump into bringing an expert witness, aka the psychologists who do the behavior clinical examination, they need your consent. They need to do a show cause hearing. They need to have a hearing regarding that first. All these courts are homogenized on a federal level, and you can in fact invoke federal rules of evidence. It then goes down to say, "In a criminal case or in a civil case involving just compensation on the Fifth Amendment, from any funds that are provided by law." And then it then goes on to say, "Compensation." Meaning the people providing that report, saying whether you're mentally fit or not, are being compensated because it's their job. The expert is entitled to reasonable compensation that's set forth as by the court. The compensation is paid for as follows: In the criminal case or in a civil case involving just compensation on the Fifth Amendment, from any funds that are provided by law, meaning somewhere, somehow, the performance that they're given, that they're provided as an expert witness, they are being compensated for.
Here's a second, here's a second solution for you regarding this. Did you know that the majority of the psychologists that they will get to come to a behavioral psychology on you in court, they themselves are being paid and compensated by the court, not as a third party, but as a department of the court itself? What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is every court has their own hierarchy. For instance, at Illinois, specifically Cook County, the people who perform psychological evaluations are under the office of the Chief Judge and are categorized as non-judicial officers under the Forensic Clinical Services. So now you have a non-judicial entity testifying as an extra witness, and they are hired by the office of the Chief Judge, who also oversees all the other judges, all the other acting judges, who are under the judiciary municipal department. Now there's a conflict of interest because the Chief Judge, whoever sees the acting judge who is in your case, is also the one who has compensated the people saying, "Hey, this guy isn't fit," which most likely they will say you are fit. So a non-judicial entity, who's controlled by the same head honcho, is being compensated by the same venue to say that you don't have a substantive, substantive right to enforce the constitution.
No matter what they say, no matter what verbiage they're using, know that their goal is to say because you're enforcing the constitution, you are unfit. They will use different verbiage. But if you don't invoke the fact that their actions of issuing an order to do a behavioral clinical examination is an effect of your enforcement of constitutional right, and thus it creates an undue burden, and thus that acting judge abrogated his or her office, and as a result, he or she cannot be afforded judicial immunity, if you cannot articulate that one way or the other or bring that into light as evidence one way or another, then they will prevail with this. And they are being compensated in-house. That's conflict of interest right here. You are the odd man out. You're supposed to be afforded due process. You're supposed to be afforded remedy, especially if it's a supposed criminal case. If these non-judicial entities are hired by the same venue that are adjudicated, are supposed to be neutral towards you, and their attorney against you is a bar member, and the acting judge is also a bar member, and they needed your consent to even do this in the first place, then you must be bringing all these up.
Even more importantly, you will find out that the Chief Judge is the one who oversees the appropriation, aka payments, the hands and out, the ledgers of how they're spending monies for those same people, aka Forensic Clinical Services, that are doing that psychological evaluation on you. They are being compensated a certain amount. They are also getting grants. This is for other stuff, which I will be going over on my Patreon of how the court system gets grants from the state or federal, and how that is tied to your social security. And if you want to go as far, you can look at their compensation amounts. You can look at how much they're being compensated. Forensic Clinical Services, these are the people that provide service for the psychological evaluation. This is the name of their department, which is also under the Chief Judge's office. You can see how much they're being compensated, and you can use all these as evidence because now there's monetary interest, there's pecuniary interest involved in the whole equation. You can even go as far as to look at the specific types of job titles. Usually, it will be a forensic psychiatrist that will do that observation. And by the way, they can do that observation. They don't have to come and interview you and talk to you, just in case you say, "You know what? I don't consent to them." You finally figure that you don't have to consent, right? Guess what they can do? By observation. It's Rule 703, Basis of Opinion Testimony by Experts. "The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert base an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing." Perceived, meaning they can do it by just sitting there and observing how the court goes. They don't even have to come to you for the interview. You don't even have to so-called consent to it. So now you can look at that man or woman, get their name, and look at their position and seeing how much they're being compensated. You can look at their salaries. You can find all these out. Unless you put this into the equation, it's evidence of conflict of interest right there. Now you can begin to go after them personally.
Just a little bit for you, for those of you taking being taken advantage of out there. Everyone stumbles here and there a little bit, but there's always a solution for you at every end. And guess what's even more interesting? That whole thing about psychological evaluation, if you look into your state common law and your Supreme Court rules or your court rules in your state, you will realize that the only people that it's applicable to is not even the everyday man or woman. Did you know that psychological evaluations are not to be done in the everyday man or woman? Psychological evaluation only applies to attorneys that are admitted into a court. Let me show you. This is also another reason why they are also quick to say, "Well, you're acting as your own attorney," so that they can apply their own rules against you. Let me show you. At Illinois, it's in 757, 758, 759, transfer to disability and active status upon involuntary commitment or upon judicial determination of legal disability because of mental condition. They're going to want to say, "Well, we're compelling you to do this because you're mentally incapable or there's a mental disability based on this expert witness." Did you know they cannot do that to the everyday man or woman? There's an equivalence of this in your state. Find it and put it into the record as evidence. The good part here at Illinois is most of it is self-authenticating because they already have their seal on its face. Top right. Rule 757, transfer disability inactive status. If an attorney admitted to practice, they're already letting you know who it applies to. And this state has been, because of mental conditions, judicially declared to be persons under legal disability, which is what they try to do to you. They want to say because of your mental condition, you have been judicially declared to be under legal disability, so we will throw our attorney or we will take to the cycle, uh, to the medical hospital, or we would aggregating a constitutional right. That is what they do to you, the everyday man or woman. But it only applies to them, an attorney admitted to practice in the state. In order for each attorney to come and run their mouth and blab on and on, they'll have to first be admitted. We'll let you know if an attorney admitted to practice in this state has been, because of mental conditions, judicially declared to be a person under legal disability or in need of mental treatment, or has been involuntarily committed to a hospital, which they will try to do to you also. If you've put in all that secure party creditor stuff, all that sovereign citizen trash, and now you're trying to speak up, or your instinct, or your insistence on keeping that way, they will, they will commit you to a mental hospital. But even then, it only applies to attorneys admitted to practice in the state. There is an equivalence of this in your state. The court shall enter an order transferring the attorney to disability and active status until further order of the court. This is what they try to do to you. They try to do a court order to say you are unfit, and because of that, we'll put our attorney, or because of that, we're just going to go ahead and sentence you and create this order and find you guilty.
The next part, 758, mental disability or addiction to drug or intoxication. If the inquiry board, again, it lets you know here at Illinois, inquiry board are the ones that oversees the judges and attorneys. They're letting you know who these apply to. If the inquiry board has reason to believe that an attorney admitted to practice, again, it only applies to an attorney admitted to practice in this state, is incapacitated from continuing to practice law by a reason of mental infirmity, mental disorder, or addiction to drug or intoxication, the administrator should file a petition with the hearing board requesting a hearing to determine whether the attorney is incapacitated and should be transferred to disability and active status. This is what they try to do to you. They try to flip it. The place of the inquiry board, which implies attorney, which you're not, they try to use the forensic clinical services that they hire and compensate in-house. Do you see the dynamic of how they play these games? If you do not know these, they will pull the wool over your eyes. Sorry to say this, but they will [ __ ] you up. But if you don't know these things and its applicability, they will do it, and they do it to a lot of people. So there's always some type of solution one way or the other.
But wait, this is their rule though, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's their rule, of course. But if you don't know their rules, which they know that you don't know because you don't read it and you run away from it, you would not know what they're bound by, and thus they can flip the game on you and screw you over with it. If you don't study what they're liable to do and the limitation of what they can do and cannot do, how then are you going to hold them liable? And if you cannot hold them liable, which is liability, then how then can you compel performance? No one is going to do anything if they're not convinced that you can hold them liable. And that which holds them liable is the limitation of their activities and averages in the constitution and the harmonious state rules and common laws with the same thing. If you're not reading any of those and you're lost in the source of something you read somewhere or some emotional stimulation that somebody instilled in you, basically some sweet talk. All right, hopefully you don't learn the hard way.
Oh, and along the same line of voting them liable to their limited scope of duty, whenever they do all of that psychological evaluation order and all that trash that they do, that's called an ex parte judgment. If you don't consent to it, as we've went over, which they required to do on hearing to determine your consent to it or not, besides the fact that the expert testimony doesn't qualify because it doesn't, it's not required to determine the fact, and besides the fact that there's a conflict of interest, besides those two or three things, all of that is ex parte. 63 in Illinois, again, there's a corresponding aspect of this in the federal and your corresponding state level. Canon 3A: A judge should perform the duties of judicial officer impartially and diligently. Let's go all the way down to number five: A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, which they will do with the forensic clinical services, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, which they will do often times. That result of their finding unfit, they will not serve it to you, which they're supposed to according to due process. They will not put it on the court docket, which they're supposed to. The court docket. But guess what? The next thing you're going to say is the court is the acting judge put in an order saying, "Oh, well, according to this expert's witness, we found you unfit, so we can just go ahead and keep doing what we want." That is an expertise judgment. That is an all-state constitution in Illinois. It is an Article 2 Bill of Rights, the 1870 version, Article 2, Section 14. No ex post facto law or making any irrevocable grant of special privilege or immunities shall be passed. They've granted them special privilege and immunity of being able to put evidence in without qualifying as an expert witness. They've granted them special privilege and immunities of being able to comment into the case as a real party in interest to determine the fact. If they're determining the facts one way or the other and putting things that will cause the acting judge to determine the fact, they are real parties and interests without any evidence of their interest in the matter. They are being granted special privilege and immunities. And guess what? The only interest that exists is one that conflicts. Conflicts what? Your due process preserved in the Bill of Rights on the United States level. Basic terminology: ex post facto. In Article 1, Section 9, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law shall be passed." And that directly and perfectly aligned recorded judicial conduct. And the only exception whereby they can do expertise decision is where circumstances require ex parte communication, meaning without the party, without you. The circumstance usually would not require it, especially if you put on the record all the things you've spoken of for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters. Your constitutional right is substantive, or issues in the marriage are authorized, provided that even that has contingency. So you must know all these details. But it's all right. Don't study their rules because it doesn't apply to you. No one is contending otherwise. But in the process of you closing your eyes so that somebody or something you don't like to pass by, something or someone that you like, or something that you need would also go right along with it. So always keep your eye open and read. If you say you are sovereign, or if you say you're a secure creditor, secure party, or you say you have rights, your rights are scattered all over the place by way of limiting them, and they put in fine print for you, but you don't read it, though, because you think it's their rules. Keep filing all those piles of papers and see what it's going to do for you. If you don't know the dynamics, the dynamics of your rights, this will give you the power behind that right, not just merely saying you have a right or that you're sovereign or somebody can't do this to you. You have to prove yourself worthy by knowing what it is you're talking about. Most importantly, the dynamics of how every aspect of it is tied and how you will enforce it and to actually make it make sense. And more importantly, can you actually hold them liable? If you don't know all these basics, these are just all these are less than one-on-one that everybody should know. If you're stepping into any situation, you must know all these basics.