Day in Court

So, I got back from my day in court. To say at the very least, it was quite entertaining and amusing to watch the whole thing that went on inside that courtroom. Also it was interesting to watch myself going through this, as well.

I saw that they made some preparations in order to deal with me, or, I should say, people like me. They [the court] definitely are well aware of these sovereignty types that are out there floating around in nooks, crannies and various other places of 'their' world. Or, so it would seem, anyway. No doubt sovereignty types are considered kooks, by most people, for the most part... I use to be one of these people.

When I first entered the courthouse building I checked the schedule for courtroom #2, I noticed that they had changed the courtroom administrator, from Magistrate Colleen to Judge Ann. Then I entered the courtroom, and there was already officer Robinson sitting there. But also noticed that there was already more courtroom busy-ness going on than normal. Normal, meaning from the other recent times I have been down there dealing with traffic tickets (I've been on a bad luck streak, lately).

There was a man that I noticed that was going in and out, in a hurry-up kind of fashion, from the administrative side of the courtroom with a computer and a cell earphone attached to his ear. He greeted Officer Robinson and showed him the computer with a smile. And then took a seat near the judge's bench and opened up his computer and started fussing with it. I remember this guy from before, he was also a judge but this time he was not in a judge's robe but wearing a gray suit and tie, and of course the red lighted cell-earphone. He later beckoned Officer Robinson over and gave him some instructions, as if to the computer program he was using, then had him sit down and do some tying.
I would not hesitate to guess that he was busy filing a "valid cause of action" against me in the closing minutes before the hearing. [This would take care of the first question of the video #2 by Mark Stevens that you posted.]

Then the court room recorder asked everybody their name except for me, I don't know why, but I walked up to her afterward and said that I am an "interested third party", for DHYAN TURIYA. As she turned to look at the man in the gray suit and cell-earphone in his ear, she said, "Well I don't know if that's ok". She then pointed to the name on the document in front of her and asked "So, are you this person?" I said, "I am the agent for this person." She said "well, we'll see."

I sat back down waiting for the thing to start, reading over some things I jotted down. I had only viewed those videos you posted a matter of minutes before I left the house. In fact, I really didn't have enough time to watch the end of part two. And had to go with what my memory could hold. Which is not much these days. I had wished I had wrote down more precisely what Mark Stevens had said.

After the Officer Robinson finished with his typing, he came back to his seat which was just in front of me.

Then it seemed like a very strange thing seemed to come about...
But first, let me explain something. Usually during the spring and fall seasons I referee soccer games in the city where I live. Its a way that I get some exercise and extra money. Its a fun thing I like doing and I've done it for more than ten - almost 15 years, so I have gotten to know a good number of other people in town who are also refs. One of these people that I have gotten to know is this policeman fellow. I have to say that I like this guy alot, because, even though he is a police officer, he is a regular real guy. I can joke around with him just like anybody. I mean, he has admitted to me some crazy shit that has gone on while he's on duty, and confided, that if he ever pulled me over, he would just give me a warning. We know each other well enough to know that we are both ok people.

So anyway, what do you think the next thing that happens? Well, in comes this guy I know, Bill - the policeman/soccer ref. Anyway, here he comes and sits down next to the officer Robinson. They sat there together for a while and then officer Robinson gets up and comes over to me and asks me for my identification. I told him, "I think the judge will take care of it. And I have an affidavit to read, here." Then he says, "I don't think its going to get that far", and I said, "I think the judge can handle it." Then he asks, as if to confirm, "You told the court recorder that you were not DHYAN TURIYA, is that right?" And I said "No, I didn't say that." He then turned away and went to sit down.

During the moment when Robinson said, "I don't think its going to get that far", I sensed that the policeman/soccer ref buddy was about to get up, but then relaxed, when Robinson backed off.

And so, the thing starts, my 'person' is the third one that is called. I step up to the bar and say I am an "interested third party". She then addresses the officer and as I turn to the officer, there standing next to Officer Robinson is my policeman/soccer ref buddy standing next to him. The Judge asks Officer Robinson if he can identify me as the person that he had ticketed. Robinson said he cannot be absolutely certain, that he would need to look at the driver's license, because he was looking only at my profile during the exchange of issuing the ticket. The Judge then asks Bill, the policeman/soccer ref, if he knows me, and he says yes and he states my name.

So anyway, this is how they made positive identification that I was the person on the traffic ticket. I turned to ask my policeman/soccer ref buddy-friend a question but he exited the room before I could get it out. I wanted to ask him if he knew me as a 'man' by that name. But it got away. Means, I am still learning how to operate in this arena with regards to this stuff.

So the judge and I jostle around a bit on how to address me. Not to call me Mr. Turiya. And I tell her that I am Dhyan Turiya, a man.

So the officer begins his testimony, gives his account of what happened and says that he has a video of it, if she wants to see it.

Then, its my turn and I tell her about the affidavit of Statement of Fact and read it [same as in the above post]. I am sure everyone in the courtroom, aside from, perhaps, the Judge, totally did not understand what it was that I was saying. I remember seeing Robinson from the corner of my eye just rolling in disbelief. [Hey, these people got to be taught a new language, a new way of seeing this world we are in. Like Winston has said we got to instruct these judges and the other corporate officers about this stuff.]

Anyway, after the affidavit the Judge asks me if there is anything else? And I say yes, that i have some questions for the officer, if that's ok? She says, "it is."
And so this is the part I botched. I asked the first question: 1) Did you file a valid cause of action against me? [should have said the person on the ticket - a minor point] He replied in the affirmative. I asked about an injured party? No response. I looked at the Judge and she said he responded to your question.

Then I asked him the second question: 2) How many elements are are in a valid cause of action. He replied "One?"
[Really blundered on this... because I didn't push it, are you certain, what is that one element?"] I started to fold up and missed my opportunity to show that the witness was incompetent and impeach the witness, which would [or should] then result in all his testimony [including the ticket] being tossed out. But by then it was obvious, the judge could not help seeing it- it was clear as day, I was the one that was incompetent.

Instead, I said to the judge, "if the officer doesn't show that there is any injured party in this matter, then he doesn't have standing, which means, Judge, that you do not have jurisdiction in this matter. [should probably have said that the court does not have "subject matter jurisdiction."]

Anyway, she just asked if there anything else? I said no. And then she proceeded to find me responsible and fine me for it.

So anyway, I feel I got my feet wet on this stuff. It shows me that if you don't have something to back up the hand you are playing, then they are going to call your bluff. This AFV thing has been out there a number of years now. So the PTB, the Judges in courts, know how to deal with anybody who is coming into a courtroom situation and know how to call their bluff. I just wonder how deep this thing goes, I wonder if over the years, the PTB along various other channels are making it more difficult for others to make the proper filing of documents, so we can have such things in place when we go out into the PUBLIC. That is probably why the thing that Winston calls in his seminars that he teaches is - technology, it may have to be always changing, otherwise the PTB will adjust and find ways to block or prevent the flood gates from opening up to much. Otherwise, the system as it is will come crashing down. [just a passing thought.]

I chalk up the experience as a good one. And I am ready to move on to learn more about putting these other documents in place. As W Shrout has said if you are going to go out from the PRIVATE and into the PUBLIC you've got to take a BOND with you. So not having these other documents in place, and you really don't have any backup. Being in a position to threaten their livelihoods, source of their income, and that is what it will take to bring on a significant change. Birth Certificate, Indemnity bond, Fiduciary technology stuff is a must. Otherwise, they will just keep calling your bluff, allowing them to keep on perpetrating endless fraud.

Regards, turiya

P.S. I am sure my policeman/soccer ref friend will have some questions for me the next time we ref a game together. I can just hear him asking me, "What the hell was all that stuff about?" There may be at least one guy there that I may be able to explain a little bit of this stuff to. Little by little, the green grass grows.



Tweet