Robert Fox gave a seminar in that series of videos.
He understood the corruption, first-hand. In the seminar, he goes over stories of things he did, cases he was involved in himself, and helping others.
The reason it is interesting is, according to him, he won cases that you or I would not expect to win, given the corruption.
One of his cases became a published case in the federal appeals court books. He won that, and he says his case was taught in some law schools for awhile -- having to do with immigration law. So, there is some independent corroboration there.
He says he beat the IRS, State Department, DOJ, and various state agencies, among others, on multiple subject matters, for many different people.
Get this: he beat the IRS when the IRS was charging his friend with several felonies, including assaulting 9 federal officials (IRS agents). His friends did not assault them; they assulted him. But the way he beat that charge was pointing out that IRS agents are NOT federal employees! They dropped the charges. Interesting, eh?
He got people release from jail within 1 day (or less) when he filed Habeas Corpus petitions.
He got people, who were charged with multiple felonies (bogus charges, but charges a corrupt system would railroad through), to go free.
His strategy had to do with the real law, rather than the things you are talking about, and according to him, his methods worked most of the time.
He rarely ever got into the facts of a case. Instead, he would end it before it could ever get anywhere, or even after conviction he would get people walking out the front door (convicted of a "crime" by a jury, yet no time in prison due to what occured at the allocution).
He never filed motions (asking the judge to do something the judge wouldn't want to do). Instead, he filed affidavits (statements of fact that could not be refuted, so they became the facts of the case -- binding the judge's ability to overcome). A completely different perspective on how to handle a corrupt system.
That's why I find the videos interesting.
I have seen other videos, and read the writings, of people with various legal theories. This is the first man that I have come across who seems to have been doing something that could work.
Traffic ticket for speeding. Used general principles of Robert Fox and Richard Cornforth.
I believe I put them into a legal bind that they could not figure out how to (a) railroad me and (b) still make it "look good" in case I appealed.
So, they dismissed.
It is unfortunate that Fox did not leave a "paint by numbers" things-to-do plan of action for court cases, but I do believe he had the right general approach.
The system is corrupt. But because of that, they think they can "cut corners" and violate the law willfully and openly, while giving it a cloak of "justice" via the pomp and circumstance.
But the truth is, in most cases: The emperor has no clothes.
As Gerry Spence, the famous trial lawyer, said: "In 61 years trying cases all across the country, I never had a case where the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time!"
And THAT is their weakness. They cut corners because most attorneys are playing the "game," too and won't call them out, and most pro se/pro per litigants have no idea what to do -- or use "internet theories" that the courts can shoot down with ease.
But when you get at the heart and soul of THE LAW (as it really is, not as they are trying to make it seem, due to wanting to cut corners), then they are revealed as a paper tiger.
No time for more now, but talk later if you are interested.
Robert Fox gave a seminar in that series of videos.
He understood the corruption, first-hand. In the seminar, he goes over stories of things he did, cases he was involved in himself, and helping others.
The reason it is interesting is, according to him, he won cases that you or I would not expect to win, given the corruption.
One of his cases became a published case in the federal appeals court books. He won that, and he says his case was taught in some law schools for awhile -- having to do with immigration law. So, there is some independent corroboration there.
He says he beat the IRS, State Department, DOJ, and various state agencies, among others, on multiple subject matters, for many different people.
Get this: he beat the IRS when the IRS was charging his friend with several felonies, including assaulting 9 federal officials (IRS agents). His friends did not assault them; they assulted him. But the way he beat that charge was pointing out that IRS agents are NOT federal employees! They dropped the charges. Interesting, eh?
He got people release from jail within 1 day (or less) when he filed Habeas Corpus petitions.
He got people, who were charged with multiple felonies (bogus charges, but charges a corrupt system would railroad through), to go free.
His strategy had to do with the real law, rather than the things you are talking about, and according to him, his methods worked most of the time.
He rarely ever got into the facts of a case. Instead, he would end it before it could ever get anywhere, or even after conviction he would get people walking out the front door (convicted of a "crime" by a jury, yet no time in prison due to what occured at the allocution).
He never filed motions (asking the judge to do something the judge wouldn't want to do). Instead, he filed affidavits (statements of fact that could not be refuted, so they became the facts of the case -- binding the judge's ability to overcome). A completely different perspective on how to handle a corrupt system.
That's why I find the videos interesting.
I have seen other videos, and read the writings, of people with various legal theories. This is the first man that I have come across who seems to have been doing something that could work.
Very good. You now persuaded me to look at these videos. I appreciate you taking the time to give me an idea what to expect.
Let me know what you think. Would be interesting to kick around some ideas.
Still following this thread by any chance?
Interesting update: I won my case.
Traffic ticket for speeding. Used general principles of Robert Fox and Richard Cornforth.
I believe I put them into a legal bind that they could not figure out how to (a) railroad me and (b) still make it "look good" in case I appealed.
So, they dismissed.
It is unfortunate that Fox did not leave a "paint by numbers" things-to-do plan of action for court cases, but I do believe he had the right general approach.
The system is corrupt. But because of that, they think they can "cut corners" and violate the law willfully and openly, while giving it a cloak of "justice" via the pomp and circumstance.
But the truth is, in most cases: The emperor has no clothes.
As Gerry Spence, the famous trial lawyer, said: "In 61 years trying cases all across the country, I never had a case where the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time!"
And THAT is their weakness. They cut corners because most attorneys are playing the "game," too and won't call them out, and most pro se/pro per litigants have no idea what to do -- or use "internet theories" that the courts can shoot down with ease.
But when you get at the heart and soul of THE LAW (as it really is, not as they are trying to make it seem, due to wanting to cut corners), then they are revealed as a paper tiger.
No time for more now, but talk later if you are interested.