Bureaucrats don’t kill people for violating "laws." No, no, no. That's barbaric. Bureaucrats only kill people to insure that they stand trial for "breaking" those "laws."

Maybe that is how bureaucrats get past the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the "constitutions."

It was not a "punishment" in the "legal" sense. No, it was the natural consequence of his peaceful disobedience.

Before "proceeding" I ask the lawyer, or the "cop," "is there evidence of a complaining party? Just a simple yes or no answer will do." If the judge attempts to interfere on behalf of his cronies, I ask the "judge," "who has the burden of proof here?" "Judges" in traffic courts usually need to be reminded it is supposedly the plaintiff, and not the defendant (us, their victims) that has the burden of proof. If so, I might point out the following rule:

"The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point." Rule 605, Arizona Rules of Evidence.

Perhaps this is the reason why the rules of evidence were thrown out in "civil traffic cases." Maybe by doing so it permits the judge to testify against me without submitting to cross-examination. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the complaining party "beyond a reasonable doubt" in "criminal cases" and "by a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases.

The judge, consistent with the rules of common sense and fairness, is not permitted to jump in and answer such questions for the plaintiff. This is true even if he does represent the plaintiff. Marcia Clark was not permitted to testify for Kato for goodness sakes. Again, I would ask the judge what is his role in this if he insists on helping (representing) the alleged plaintiff. If he insists on having the "right" to repeatedly jump in and testify then I will remind him of my "right" to cross-examine him. I will also remind him of rule 605.

As previously shown, evidence of a complaining party does not consist of merely having the name of that party such as "the state." If that's all they can or will provide, I will tell them that such an answer is p non-responsive to a question which only requires a yes or no answer.

What in the world is so difficult about answering yes or no?

I don't let the cop, judge, or lawyers get off point here. This point is critical in that it does more to expose them than almost anything else I can think of at this point in my experience. That's why I keep asking them even if they tend to get very upset. It is easier to see why this is so important if you look at it this way: imagine you get served with a summons an; complaint from people you have never heard of before. Do you just accept they have standing to complain?

Think about this for a moment, why would politicians get upset just because I am asking for evidence of a complaining party? The reason is because, like the lawyer who said who he was representing was "irrelevant," they know they cannot provide any facts to prove there is a complaining party other than themselves. But who are they? Who are these violent strangers presuming to have the "right" to interfere with my life and that of others without anyone's freely given consent?

Bureaucrats act on behalf of themselves under a collective alter ego known as "the state;" a thinly concealed protection racket.

I am exposing the fact that the phrase the "State of Arizona," or "City of San Diego" etc., is just an alter ego shared by the cop, the prosecutor and the lawyer representing them both, the pretended "judge." It is merely an idea, a "mental conception" or fantasy that has no real, tangible existence outside of someone's head. It's just like Santa Claus; yes, people can dress up as Santa Claus, but that doesn't make them Santa Claus. "Santa Claus" is just an idea that may have once seemed very real to you but, as you grew up, it no longer did, and for good reason. There is no "state" and that's why judges refuse to comply with rule 9(a) and such precedent from the "Supreme Court" quoted above: "courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties..." The difference, however, between Santa Claus and the "state" is that no one is using a gun to force me to believe in Santa and, if someone did, they wouldn't be hailed as a hero or honorable.

Other than their guns and an insatiable appetite for violence and domination, the only thing bureaucrats have are their opinions. For example, I once had a judge in Arizona tell me the "State of Arizona" was an "act of congress from 1911." Who was I to argue with her (other than pointing out she was testifying against me on behalf of the cop)? How is an "act of congress" a complaining party? What obligation do I owe, and how did I damage an alleged "act of congress?" Better yet, exactly where, when, why and how was I within or subject to an act of congress?

By her own admission the "State of Arizona" was not the ground. That, however, was the cop's only basis to claim that I was within the state. Do you think the cop was thinking of an act of congress when he testified I was within the state?

"Yeah, this is officer Gruden; I'm observing a white male within an act of congress without ID, send back-up NOW! Lots of back-up."

Even if I were to accept the opinion that the "state" had a tangible existence such as a group of men and women, why should I accept the opinion this cop or some lawyer, represents every one of them? How about their opinion that there was a cause of action against me? How did I damage this group of people? What possible obligations could I have to this group of unidentified people and why? You see? This is why I question everything. The more you examine what these people say and do, the more it falls apart.

The "state" is not a natural phenomenon. It is man-made and exists only in the mind. There are no naturally created "states." They are all artificial. Prior to July 4th, 1776, there were no American "states," there were allegedly American "colonies." The "colonies" were magically transformed into "states" by nothing more than words being scribbled onto pieces of paper called "constitutions." However, unless you believe in childish ideas such as magic, then you know that words on paper create nothing.

Currently (summer 2002), there is a lot of talk about a Palestinian "state" in the Middle East. The land is there and the Palestinians are there, but where is their so-called "state?" A "state" is nothing more than a "state" of mind. A "nation" is nothing more than a halluci-Nation. A "country" is ... starting to get the picture?

You see, merely by asking, "is there evidence of a complaining party?" I am exposing the fact there isn't one, at least, not a tangible one. There's just an illusion in someone's head. In other words: There is no "state."

As I like to put it: can I hit a "state" with a rock? To put the question differently, can I put a "government" in a wheelbarrow? No, I can't. In stark terms, we can destroy the physical infrastructure of a "country" but, if the people remain, the "state" remains because their "country" (group identity) was all in their heads to begin with, not their land. They merely associate their "country" with "their" land. Many think the "state" is the ground, that the geographic landmass "Arizona" is identical in all respects to the "State of Arizona."

This is not only false, this is absurd, and for many reasons. I will provide only one more example. If the "state" were the ground and ONLY the ground (just as a table is just a table and not a book on the table), then the complaining party in a traffic case would be the ground. Now that's insane.

Obviously the "state" is not the ground. A "state" is not geographic or even tangible; if it's anything, then it's political. The shocking reality behind all of this is if evidence could be admitted to prove there is a group of individuals out there who entered into some sort of agreement, there is still no evidence I'm obligated to them or have damaged them in any way.

To think I can somehow damage someone in Page Arizona if I don't have ID on me when driving down the street in Phoenix to get a box of raisins (or other dry fruit) is "patently" insane. Anyone with such a belief would be laughed at as a nutcase. However, put a costume on that same individual, give him a gun, a really cool looking badge, a car with fancy lights on top, and total lack of discretion and personal responsibility and...

That is why I may also ask, "is there evidence of a cause of action against me?" I keep a record of their answers as best I can because the odds are they are going to be non-responsive to each and every question. I also like to point out the contradictions whenever they arise. Being non-responsive is itself proof the so-called "trial" is unfair. As previously stated, the "Supreme Court" holds the opinion that to satisfy "due process," a hearing must be meaningful. It hardly needs demonstrating that being non-responsive falls far short of being truly "meaningful."

And, on that point, can a "trial" based on violence be "meaningful" to begin with? To then add almost complete non-responsiveness to the violence certainly seems extreme and unnecessary, unless, of course, the "Supreme Court" believes "meaningful" means "sham," "charade," "joke" etc.

Not surprisingly, the judge will usually ignore my questions and pretend I'm not even there. They do this by calling the cop up to the witness stand to testify despite any and all objections I may raise. If you see this in person you'll know, first hand, that these proceedings have nothing to do with fairness.

I have had "cops" admit in depositions they lacked personal knowledge of the facts and "judges" have still permitted them to testify. Indeed, these "trials" resemble a "dog and pony" show, and a bad one at that. I mean, some of these so-called judges don't even give you pretense of fairness, that's how ridiculous they are. No, to them, naked aggression is the rule.

That is why I am never permitted to videotape the proceedings and there is never a reason given despite the fact the rules permit it (even so, in "Legal Land" "judges" don't have to give reasons for anything). It boggles the imagination when you consider that, in the "Mesa City Court," so-called "criminal" proceedings are videotaped every day. Just walk in and you can see several being broadcast in the lobby.

During direct examination, if the persecutor or the judge asks the cop a question that "assumes facts not in evidence," I object on those grounds. This is basically his entire testimony though. There is humor somewhere in there, but I'm not laughing.

Most of the cop's testimony will consist of rambling "time worn" legal opinions such as his seeing me within a pretended "city." Well, unless a "city" is a particular geographic area and nothing else (it's not), then our cop has assumed facts not in evidence. He has also drawn a legal opinion that is supposed to be based upon facts already in evidence. The judge will really expose his true nature if he overrules this objection. It is unfair to permit a witness to assume facts not in evidence. Just ask any lawyer.

A big one is if the lawyer asks the cop a question requiring him to draw a legal opinion or conclusion, such as "did you see Marc commit a crime" or "driving without a license?" This is a very serious glitch in the "system" I've exploited for years. They will always allow the cop to testify he saw me commit a "crime" or violate a so-called "statute." However, if I ask questions any more difficult or probing than that, the lawyer and the judge will run to the rescue of their client (partner) and refuse to allow him to answer any such questions. That's exactly the point of the questions though; to make them run into the corner.

If I object to a question requiring the cop to offer an opinion such as "I saw Marc violate a statute," and the judge overrules that objection, I don't worry because I know the judge will contradict himself later on when it's my turn to "cross-examine" the "cop." The judge is headed for a pretty bad time for allow¬ing the cop to continue giving legal opinions because he has permitted the cop to assume facts not in evidence and has overruled my objection that a question called for a legal conclusion.

My "cross-examination" is geared to taking advantage of these "rulings" by helping the judge back himself into a corner so he will contradict himself and throw out every rule of fairness in his sacred little "law" books. I know from experience that "cops" will not be permitted to answer questions such as "what is a statute?" That is why I deliberately set them up to contradict themselves. Some lawyers have proudly proclaimed the cop doesn't need to know what a "statute" is to prove I "violated" one. Really! Maybe you can also perform brain surgery without knowing the brain is in the skull. Where is the "personal knowledge?" Without the lawyerese, shouldn't the bare minimum for a witness to be credible be that he at least knows what he's talking about?

The point is not to be argumentative, but to get the case thrown out so I can go back to being productive instead of wasting my time with these crooks dressed in suits, robes, and other idiotic uniforms.


RCW 9A.72.010(1) defines a 'materially false statement' as 'any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding. The court as a matter of law determines the materiality of a false statement. State v. Dial, 44 Wn. App. 11, 14, 720 P.2d 461, review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1016 (1986). Here, Beiermann's statements were material.

Our Supreme Court held in State v. Carpenter, 130 Wash. 23, 26, 225 P. 654 (1924): It has generally been held by the courts and text writers that testimony upon which a charge of perjury may be based need not necessarily be concerning, nor directly relevant to, issues made by the pleadings, but it is sufficient for that purpose if it is material to any question that may properly arise in the trial of the case.

Here, the State had the burden of proving that Beiermann's statements in her civil trial deposition were false. This was relevant to the criminal case because the State charged Beiermann with theft. The second count of theft arose from the false statements Beiermann made in her deposition. Beiermann's statements in her deposition were relevant, and the trial court did not err by admitting them.

III. Improperly Admitted Evidence

Beiermann asserts the trial court erred by admitting: (1) the Beiermanns' tax returns; (2) her statement to the effect that she was John Ladenburg's cousin; and (3) proof of insurance payments of $26,476.76 wrongfully paid to Beiermann's husband arising out of the auto accident where Beiermann had sent a forged letter with Marcus's signature indicating her husband lost wages. The trial court did not err by admitting this evidence.

http://commonlawgrandjury.com is here to inspire the sovereign People of the united States to learn about the de jure common law grand jury. People have the right to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers.