Nut soup.
How to win at Law.
War is war.
Love is war.
Law is war.
Of all of them, Law is predictable, though not as you may think.
Yes, there is LAW, and legal, and Law, but rarely if ever do these influence the outcome of legal cases.
Grasp this firmly: Legal cases are decided by judges based entirely on the judges own self interest.
Yes, the judge will cite law, and LAW, and legal precedent, but in the end, it always, inevitably comes down to their own self interests. Law is simply the justification that the normies will accept as they have been trained by their schooling.
Rule One in Winning legal cases is to align your interest in the case with the judge’s interest. If either happen to actually align with Law, so much the better, but it is not necessary.
If the judge’s interests do not align with the outcome you desire, then your strategy evolves to changing these circumstances. In the USA today, all the judges must be assumed to be corrupt, therefore it is very unlikely that any judge will naturally act according to Law, and render a verdict suitable to your goals. You have to assume that the corruption in the country is so endemic as to have affected both the judge, and the system as a whole.
Given this understanding, to Win at Law, means you must wage very effective war, but not so much against your opponent in the legal battle, but rather against the judge.
As Sun Tzu notes, before engaging in battle, you survey the terrain. This includes surveying your real opponent, the judge, for vulnerabilities, and weaknesses that will provide you with leverage in the upcoming fight. Research the individual. Use OSINT tools to seek out background material off social to give you hints as to how their mind functions by their choice of language. Yes, this is inductive & reductive reasoning, but you will get the hang of it soon. The idea is to get to know the judge’s mind, and life circumstances as well as your own. When you know where they can be hurt, you own them.
Grasp this firmly: Legal cases are decided by judges based entirely on the judge’s own self interest.
Grasp as well: As has been proven repeatedly the judiciary in the USA is infiltrated, and corrupted. Do not expect Law from these people at this time. Get real in your appraisals.
Judges have several, generic vulnerabilities. You can use their system against them. By learning the small(ish) rule books for either Civil or Criminal Procedures in our law system, you can learn to respond rapidly, thus taking the system’s timing as a weapon against the judge, and your nominal opponent in the actual case. Further, Procedure is their BIG GOD. Use it against them at every opportunity.
To win at Law in today’s American corrupted legal system, you must be very realistic as to the rules of the Game.
There are NO RULES other than what may be found within the Rules of Court Procedure (Civil or Criminal as may be pertinent).
NO RULES except in that thin little book.
So, there is Law, but that is merely the covering excuse the Judge will proffer when making their ruling which will be in their own self interest. Law is the coating that makes it all palatable to the normies. Law is the cover that the system works in an impartial way. Law is the perfume that attempts to disguise the stink.
Knowing this, the path to Victory in Court, can easily be stated as the discovery of circumstances which make the judge’s interests align with your own. Once you can visualize those circumstances, it is then necessary to engineer their manifestation in order to win.
Note that this is what the ‘protesters (violent Trannifa and the Cult of St. Floyd activists)’ in front of judges’ houses are doing. They are engineering circumstances to make the judge think differently about their particular case. Mob action, though sometimes briefly successful, is the stupid way to approach this problem.
Recognizing that no being on this planet will willingly act against their own self interest, which, by the way, is why the WEF works so hard to disguise their intent with language designed to disorient the normies, so the concept is to find one of the judge’s interests that can be seen by as compatible with the outcome you desire. Once located, then it is just a matter of elevating that interest to the top of the Judge’s considerations in order to also elevate your chances of winning.
If you can engineer it so that this becomes the Judge’s dominating concern, then you win as the ruling will naturally go your way, with the Judge’s mind then working out the reconciliation language necessary for them to live with the ruling they just delivered.
Remember, you can say the same thing about the Courts, as you can about the Military, that is, “the system works, when you work the system”.
You know going in that they want to tell you “no”. So your goal is to figure out what would make them want to say “yes” to you.
Companion piece to the Judges’ Nuts podcast.
As a state judge I resent that remark! Not really, Uncle Clif...keep em coming
As someone who has practiced, pro se, in state, federal and administrative court actions, absolutely everything you say is true. The judges advocate for the state, and tailor their "rulings" according to state interests. That being said, lawyers today don't do LAW, they do "procedures." They file paperwork according to a certain "trained" acumen. To beat them you have to, just like in martial arts, take them outside of their fight strength. You have to attack them in intellectual ways that their law school never prepared them for, i.e. jurisdiction, agency, delegation of authority authorizations, state constitutions, federal statutes, etc, and most importantly, you have to destroy their case via your discovery requests. Discovery is where you break their will to proceed. You unveil documents, photos, video, affidavits, all and sundry that proves, unquestionably, your position. If they decline the discovery request, you file the Motion to Compel Discovery and in that instrument you present your case to the judge. You can tell your side of the story, as you see fit without testifying, prep the battlefield, and cast a shadow of doubt over your opponent in front of the judge. Its a chess game that not everyone can play and sadly the ones who can, really can't.