Originally I had a jury trial scheduled for my case but today the judge reset the trial date and said it is now a bench trial. He said he is well inside the law and the supreme court backs him in changing it. Anyone have any input on this subject. Thanks

L4,

Did you file a Notice of Special Appearance?
Did you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?
Do you even know if you are in an Article I or Article III court?

You placed your question in the Criminal section of the forum and not the Civil. Am I correct that your opponent is a government entity? Are you using an attorney?

How you answer these basic questions allows others to give answers that are useful to you situation. Otherwise we are left to speculate and possibly give answers that are not helpful to you.

It is a JOP court. Not sure what article court. Plaintiff is a city government. No attorney. I am Pro Se.
The judge says the Supreme Court will back him on changing from jury to bench trial. I did not want to challenge him as he was acting like a Pro Se scrap like me shouldn't even need to know. Would be interesting to know the exact case he is referring to. I think he he is out of line.
* Last updated by: L4 on 12/23/2018 @ 3:30 AM *

I'm not familiar with JOP, unless it means Justice of the Peace. I might get disagreements with points that I make, but if your opponent is a governmental entity, and they are citing statutes, and there is NOT a man/woman that you injured, then you're most likely in an Article I Court. Referring to the Three Articles of the Federal Constitution.

You are in a State Court. The States have their own Constitutions. But you are not being accused of an Article III Crime I bet.

If you were not able to answer those questions that I gave you, then most likely you inadvertently crossed into their jurisdiction.

I've had multiple encounters with State Agents. What they do is to trick you into Contract Law. Most likely they presented you with a verbal -performance contract- that you were oblivious to. And you failed to object. Under contract law, one of the elements is -offer & acceptance-. And if you didn't refuse their offer, then your silence can be interpreted as acceptance.

The Federal Constitution allows people the unlimited Right to Contract. I stated this several times before.

In an Article I Court, Constitutional Rights are ignored... unless you Reserve Your Rights! Most people don't do that.
Under Contract Law, you should look at anything being said as "an offer". You MUST "Object" the Offer. Or better yet put it in the form of a question. Directly ask the judge... -Are you making me an offer-" And watch his body language! Don't allow him to side-step the question!

This will take great courage and guts on your part.
Without exception...every word out of his mouth, ask the question: "Are you making me an offer?"

Therefore if the judge states that he is rescheduling the trial date. You need to ask, Are you making me an offer?

If he states that he setting the case before a bench trial.
You better ask, Are you making me an offer?

But if he instead states that he's issued a Court Order, then DEMAND the order be put in writing!

Study Contract Law

Yes. It is Justice of the Peace or a state court. Too late to ask him if he is making me an offer. He has set a court date in a month. Please indicate specifically what part of contract law you are referring to. Are you referring to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)code? I know there is stuff in there that deals with our acceptance of statutes.
So, you are saying he can do a bench trial despite a request for a jury? I have sent you a message, not sure if it will go to your email.

L4,

You are correct that that it's too late for asking those questions. I was hoping others reading this would find that statement useful. Many people here have been victims of corruption within the legal system and don't know how they've been deceived. Unfortunately, not everyone's mind is open to what I have to say. Because I'm only expressing an opinion and I'm NOT in the legal industry. I disclose that up front.

The Constitution addresses three laws: Law (Common), Equity and Admiralty (Maritime). And your statement of the UCC is correct. Each State has adopted some version of the Federal UCC. There are people who refuse to acknowledge this FACT.

And people don't challenge the court's jurisdiction, and they don't ask what Law is being practiced in the courtroom.

Yes, the UCC deals with contracts and commercial agreements.
It's "my opinion" that the answer to your last question is YES. But only if you view this from the standpoint that what the judge just did was "making you an offer".

Under law, acquiesce (silence) is viewed as Acceptance.
And if you failed to Object, then what you just did was to accept his offer. I've read many statements in this forum about judges making rulings that that are unfair, or violate their Rights. I take the alternative viewpoint.

It's my opinion that what "appeared to be" a ruling was actually an offer to contract put before you. And then you agreed to the terms of the Performance Contract by not Objecting to it. THIS is the deception that I believe is going on in theses corrupt courtrooms.

Your Rights were NOT violated, if you chose not to exercise them, and agreed to accept the contract offer instead.

Read My comments under Legal Research.

L4,

I read your private message to me. And you are on the verge of awareness with this statement you made:
"I have administrative law(zoning) violations which translates into a criminal charges. I have been charged with 3 misdemeanors". I say this is GREAT!

1. You know that this is an Article I Administrative Hearing and not an Article III Judicial Court.
2. You know that you are not under Law(Common), or Equity Law, because you can't be charged with a crime under Common Law unless there's a man/woman that you injured.
And Equity Law deals with Performance Contracts. Under Equity, the only crime is that of Contempt for failing to obey a Court Order.
3. Only Admiralty has a criminal element for breach of contract.

What you have from your own statement is a Performance Contract dealing with the Zoning Statutes. And you have been accused of breach of contract. Your question should be, "Where is the Contract?"

The Federal Constitution has a provision which Protects everyone's Right to Contract. Therefore it's my opinion that you can't claim a Right's violation under the Constitution unless you can PROVE CONTRACT FRAUD!

It's my opinion that they have made the Presumption of Law, that you are subject to their jurisdiction. And you haven't presented Evidence to the contrary.

It took me quite awhile, but I finally found actual Evidence that places me outside of the jurisdiction of the State. I put it to the test twice with traffic violations presented to me by State Agents (State Police).

By the way, the Presentment of an infraction is again another offer to contract. Some require your signature. So if you sign a traffic ticket, you just entered into a contract agreement to appear in court.

They only filed a warrant for your arrest because you breached the performance contract you signed, by not appearing in court.

Study Dr. Grave's Contract Law section.

OK, So my mistake is that I did not "object" to the judges "offer". What you are saying is that I need to ask them to present to me the contract for performance that I am supposedly in violation of. Because the city is a corporation allowed to be so by the state, they must produce contracts that show you/I failed to perform and if they don't, they have commited contract fraud. Correct?
Also, do you believe a challenge of jurisdiction that you put to the test would be applicable in this instance? Or, have I already conceded to jurisdiction for failing to address it early on in the proceedings?
Would I file paperwork for these items we are discussing or wait for the trial and present it then along with a verbal challenge?
I believe the judge is peeved (anyway/already) at me for dragging this out. I say so what. We pay their wages to be public servants so they'll just need to deal with it. I know that the legal system is currently set up to push as many people through and who gives a rat's A** whether there is true justice. Just being in the courtroom and seeing everyone make plea deals and accept whatever the judge throws at them shows you what they "expect" every good citizen to do. It's BS. I believe "Good Citizens" do what we are doing and call out their scam they are running.

All of these discussions are limited to someone being in an Administrative Hearing. Not in an Article III Judicial Court.

I agree with your analysis in the 1st paragraph. But I didn't say anything about there being Fraud.

If you are being offered a verbal contract, and you freely accept, then there's no Fraud involved.

Also remember that Subject Matter Jurisdiction can be challenge at anytime.

I know that I will get backlash for saying the following, but it's my belief and personal experience that Contract Law is how people are being trapped into waiving their Rights in these Administrative Hearings.

In essence that's exactly what happens when you are "offered" a plea bargain. A plea bargain is a Performance Contract.
A Bail Bond is another Performance Contract.

And if you breach the terms of the contract, you could find that a Warrant has been placed upon you.

These Administrative Hearings that masquerade as Artile III Judicial Courts ensnare people into verbal and written Performance Contracts that we enter into because of our silence (acquiesce) or our ignorance.

It's my final belief that these Performance Contract could be construed as them having Subject Matter Jurisdiction over us.

Good Luck trying to get them to admit this. If they did admit to such a contract, then the deception would be exposed!

Again, I suggest studying Contract Law and it's elements.
Learn how to recognize when you are being offered a contract vs. the "appearance" of a judicial decision being made in the case.

Words in Law can be very deceptively used against you.
I also suggest that you get practice writing Affidavits.
I've explained the power of these document several times before. And read Paper Arrows by Howard Griswold

It makes comlete sense Jerome2 what you are saying about contracts. In essence if I make you a promise to perform a certain thing then I am bound by contract. If there is no "consideration" or moneys involved then no contract. The trap with the courts is that they don't tell you most of the time they are offering a contract. Apparently you have to be on guard when there is any form of bargaining due to the way legal speak is used. It may sound like English to you and me, but it can be used to deceive and trick you.
From what I have read our courts are "Merchant Law" or "Equity courts" from a 1938 case "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins where Common Law was blended with Commercial Law(Negotiable Instruments Law).
There is the recommedation that when you sign ANYTHING that you make sure you reserve your rights under UCC by adding "Without prejudice UCC 1-308" because in an "Equity court" your constitutional rights are suspended because it is a Maritime court. This way you have recourse/remedy.
Should We/I sign all court paperwork with this reservation?
How about any citation you receive?
What are your thoughts?

L4,

I'm glad that you came to that realization yourself. You are correct in your final statement. Whenever I sign any document or application , above my signature I place All Rights Reserved. UCC 1-308 and Without Prejudice also suffice.

Just about every commercial website also has All Right Reserved somewhere on their website page. Even Dr. Graves website has a reservation of rights statement on it's webpage.
Clearly all these commercial site recognize the UCC, or they wouldn't have that clause on their website.

But they take Silent Judicial Notice of this fact. And they try to dismiss that the UCC is actually what's being practice. And when you bring up Admiralty you are made to sound foolish, or a conspiracy theorist. When in fact the UCC was derived from Admiralty, or Merchants Law as you stated.

The Federal Constitution clearly recognizes Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdictions in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3.
Even the US Codes and State Codes have section in the code dealing with the UCC. They call them Statutes in
an effort to disguise the fact that they are dealing with the UCC.

So if the Federal Constitution and all the State Codes of Statues recognize the UCC, then why do we insist on making Constitutional arguments in these Article I Administrative Hearings when they are maneuvering us into Performance Contracts that we willingly accept?

You can try to make the argument that you didn't know that you were being offered a contract that waived your Rights when you made the agreement. But the counter argument that you should have refused it, or sought legal counsel could also be made.

You can't be denied your Rights. But you can choose not to exercise your Rights. That's what it means to Waive your Rights.

I challenge everyone reading this to perform your own due diligence. Don't accept what I state as being fact!

Jerome2, I found an electronic download of "Paper Arrows" by Howard Griswold (freedom-school.com). It seems to add to Howard Freeman's small book on the UCC.
They both go back to a deal that Franklin D. Roosevelt made with the financiers of the world that further obliterated the people of America's rights.
I've sent you 2 messages, would you please check for them.
Thanks.