Jonathan Gross on government as a weapon HERE! Think about this. If you should be ever charged with a crime, how will you address it? To obtain a good attorney to defend yourself against a felony charge, figure it will cost $25,000 – $50,000 conservatively. The attorney will want their money up front, which means you’ll need to have the cash or sell some assets. If you do hire an attorney, they must play by the Court’s (government’s) rules, which ties their hands, and prevents the best possible defense – especially if it’s a political crime and the government wants desperately to silence you for criticizing them. Criticizing a tyrannical government is a serious offense – just ask the January 6th defendants.

As is noted in the link above, some of the government’s tricks are to cite multiple charges as part of the theater to create the impression that if someone has 10 charges against them, at least one of them must be true. The idea is baffle the jury so they will vote guilty on at least one charge. The court is like a theater or stage play. The judge is the director, the prosecutor is the lead actor, and the defense attorney is the antagonist and the rest of the participants are extras. You are told that you are a fool if you defend yourself, and that is highly discouraged, but, as yet anyway, still allowed. Of course, if you defend yourself, you save the $25,000 – $50,000 plus the court is compelled to give you more latitude than a licensed attorney who knows all the rules and has to play by them if he wants to keep his license to practice law.

If a SPECIOUS criminal charge were to be levied against this writer, the strategy would be to defend myself. In so doing, I would ask the judge how to proceed in jury selection (determining if jurors are biased and/or appropriate to serve on a jury). In so doing, the first objective would be to educate the jury in my opening statements, so they were clear on the following facts:

1.) Who I am and my personal history and philosophy in a concise format.

2.) That the government has an unlimited budget to convict me, and I do not have an unlimited budget.

3.) Who the players are and how to take advantage of them i.e. Judge, prosecutor, court clerk, bailiff.

4.) Caution the jury that their best friend is the bailiff, and that they may ask questions that may have not been answered, or answered clearly and sufficiently, and they can have information repeated verbatim by the court reporter who records everything said. The jury may also request and see a copy of any and all laws regarding the charges to make sure the charges are relevant and accurate.

5.) Then I would pick someone on the jury who has, for example, a green shirt. I would then point out to them that (in pretend) a law was passed against wearing a green shirt, and so that juror would then be guilty of a charge, but would he be guilty of a crime? Of course not, and the juror would see that immediately. Then I would point out that the government would have to come up with a few other charges in order to create some theater and the impression that where there’s smoke, there must be fire. Let’s say for novelty purposes, the government would add to the green shirt charge, picking one’s nose in public, wearing yellow socks, and possessing a gold tooth. Now we have four charges of which someone could easily be found guilty as charged, but none of which are crimes. This approach would likely anger both the judge and the prosecutor as they could see where I was going with jury nullification (a good thing to defeat a bad law or an unjust charge, but not to excuse true criminal behavior)

Nonetheless, as a self represented defendant, I could probably get away with this approach if done skillfully and without them seeing it coming.

6.) Next, I would review the charges with the jury, and would point out that I am going to respect their time, although the government might not as they want to have days of convoluted arguments and evidences of my being guilty of the charges. Instead, I would tell the jury I am not going to waste their time and intellect, and instead acknowledge (not plead guilty to) that the charges were true, but that I am not guilty because what I did was not a crime.

7.) At that point, I would turn it over to the prosecutor who would look pretty foolish trying to prove what was already admitted to be true. Instead, he would just repeat the charges, accuse me of pleading guilty, and call for a conviction.

8.) My closing arguments would be a summary repetition of my opening arguments with an attempt to point our how political and specious the charges are, and my innocence as an upstanding citizen of the community. After that, I would let the chips fall where they may.

Pensiamento Peligroso