Aug 20, 2013 9:56 AM

I wanted to share this, Chris Schulte. Re-reading Scott Duncan's thread on Dean Kory I found this. It will help focus on whats important.

Scott Duncan: <<Here is my court room position in a nutshell.

You do not accept surety — EVER.

Step 1: Reserve all rights. (get Derek Moran to parrot how to do that...he loves that shit)

Step 2: Direct your case and do not let them proceed. Present NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and REMEMBER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS IT CONTAINS. If they do not answer these questions you object, and declare that unless the questions in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE are answered, you CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

Anything outside of this supports their position that you are “playing” their game, and thus it is presumed that you understand the rules. The only way to counter this is to declare that you CANNOT UNDERSTAND the rules without these questions being answered.

Think very carefully about this. If you are a novice at chess, and did not know about castling and its rules, you might raise the obvious question, “Why do you get to move two pieces?” If I refuse to explain that rule to you, and even deny you the chance to present your understanding of the rules, would you continue playing chess with me?

If you attempt to stop the game for this reason, that's when you're going to “understand” that this was a chess game for money; and that I have big, burly thugs to enforce this game. You claimed to know the rules for the engagement, even if you later disclaimed being an expert.

Novice drivers and expert drivers all have to follow the same rules. You don't get to ignore rules because you suck at them. Just as my chess board is not a chess school, the court will not allow the presumption that you being a novice is a lawful excuse. The only method to extract yourself “with honour” is to accept responsibility for the mistake in presumption. They are presuming something wrong...and you are acknowledging it's your fault. The court must accept this MISTAKE, and your entreaty for forgiveness for the unintended debt created. The court MUST do this.

Your name should never come into it. Your name is but a piece of evidence in a much larger presumption that the court has the right to attach a name derived from a public document, to a living man. This, of course, is untrue. The court knows it's not their right. That's why in the Mary Croft days, the quote “living man” argument worked. But these are trimming at the branches of the poisonous tree in an attempt to make it look pretty. The only solution is to target the root. The root is accounting and surety; there's no farther to dig down.>>